Advertisement

Philosophic History and the Critique of Orthodoxy

I. Philosophic History
  • Stephen Paul Foster
Part of the International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives Internationales D’histoire des Idées book series (ARCH, volume 154)

Abstract

David Hume and Edward Gibbon were self-proclaimed philosophic historians. Philosophic history challenged Christianity’s authority to make the past theological, i.e., the study of God’s work in human history. The gospel proclaiming Christ’s participation in history as a man is indeed an affirmation of theological-historical truth. Thus, philosophic history in its confrontation with theological history was momentous in its rebellion against Christianity. “Any ecclesiastical historian who believes in Christianity is bound also to be a theologian,” observed Arnaldo Momigliano.1 Christian history was inherently theological in conception, requiring a persistent interweaving of fact with dogma and an insistence on the transcendental significance of that period of time in which Christ came and participated in human events. (Ibid., 138) Philosophic history was persistently skeptical about the transcendental causes at work in history and inevitably antagonistic toward Christian dogma.2 Hugh Trevor-Roper writes that: “[s]ince the Renaissance, European writers had sought to discover general causes in history to replace the theological determinism of the Middle Ages, and the theologians had invariably resisted these attempts.”3

Keywords

Human Nature Original Italic Roman Civilization Roman Empire Supernatural Explanation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnaldo Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography ( Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990 ), 137.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnaldo Momigliano, “Introduction. Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire,” in The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity In the Fourth Century: Essays edited by Arnaldo Momigliano,ed. Arnaldo Momigliano (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 3. “There is an anti-Christian note in Montesquieu which becomes loud in Voltaire and loudest of all in Gibbon’s Decline and Fall.” Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hugh Trevor-Roper, [i]ntroduction to The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), 1:1v-Ivi.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Momigliano, “ Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.,” Conflict Between Paganism und Christianity,83–84.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See Jordan, Gibbon and His Roman Empire,172–83, for a discussion of Gibbon’s admiration of Tacitus and the extent to which he attempted to emulate him.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Momigliano, Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography,137.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See Roger Boesche, “The Politics of Pretence: Tacitus and the Political Theory of Despotism,” History of Political Thought 8, no. 2 (summer 1987): 189–210, for an excellent discussion of Tacitus as a theorist of despotism.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Momigliano, Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography,117.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    It is worth noting that the title pages of Books One and Two of Hume’s Treatise bear an epigraph by Tacitus: Rara temporum felicitas, ubi sentire, quae velis; 00000 quae sentias, dicere licet. “Seldom are men blessed with times in which they may think what they like and say what they think.” Hume also, apparently, admired Tacitus and intended to do his own philosophical unmasking. Hume’s use of epigrams has been analyzed by Paul Russell, “Epigram, Pantheists, and Freethought in Hume’s Treatise: A Study in Esoteric Communication,” Journal of the History of Ideas 54, no. 4 (October 1993): 659–73.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palmer, Catholics and Unbelievers- In Eighteenth-Century France,53..Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Louis Kampf, “Gibbon and Hume,” in English Literature and British Philosophy: A Collection of Essays, ed. S. P. Rosenbaum ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971 ), 112.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    See Earnest Gellner, Reason and Culture: The Historic Role of Rationality and Rationalism (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992), 61. Gellner writes that one of the salient features of the history of modern rationality (Post-Cartesian rationality) is that all phenomena become subject to the regular conventions of rational inquiry. No phenomenon is permitted to claim a special status and dictate the methods of investigation into its claims.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Kurt Rudolf, Historical Fundamentals, and the Study of Religion.- (New York: Macmillan, 1985), 34. Rudolf says that: “[fjor the historian of religions, there is, strictly speaking, no ‘religion’ at all.” This seems to be the case for Gibbon. He writes about religions but entertains no religion with a privileged perspective.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, trans. Fritz C.A. Koelln and James P. Pettegrove ( Boston: Beacon Press, 1951 ), 196.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Cassirer, Philosophy of the Enlightenment,136. “The controversy from now on is no longer concerned with particular religious dogmas and their interpretation, but with the nature of religious certainty; it no longer deals with what is merely believed but with the nature, tendency, and function of belief as such.”Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Quoted from Porter, Edward Gibbon: Making History, 111.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Roy Porter, “Gibbon, the Secular Scholar,” History Today 36 (September 1986): 49, writes: “Gibbon’s history stepped outside this holy circle [of the Church]. His onslaught against religion didn’t merely expose theological sophistries and the ambitions to plant the Cross on the Capitol. Rather, he turned traditional histories on their head, or more properly, on their feet. Human history was not a divine puppet-theatre. On the contrary, the history of religion had to be seen as an expression—indeed, an aberration—of the history of man.”Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Stephen, History of English Thought,1:449–50.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    See Charles Coulston Gillispie, “Science and the Enlightenment,” in The Edge of Objectivity: An Essay in the History of Scientific Ideas ( Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960 ), 151–201.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    For a short but superb discussion on the background of skepticism and its impact on the study of history leading into the eighteenth century, see Richard Popkin, “Skepticism and the Study of History,” in David Hume: Philosophical Historian,ed. David Fate Norton and Richard H. Popkin, (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill and Co., 1965), ix-xxxi.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    See Victor G. Wexler, David Hume and the History of England (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1979), for an iconoclastic work that argues that Hume’s claims, and those of his interpreters such as Duncan Forbes, for impartiality are exaggerated. Wexler contends that Hume’s major motivation was less impartiality than his desire to discredit Whig historians.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Tacitus, The Annals, trans. John Jackson, Loeb ed., 3 Vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931 ), 243–45.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    Bond states that Gibbon’s literary form in the Decline and Fall was modeled after Aristotle’s rhetorical panegyric or epideictic style of address which involves praise and blame. In assigning praise and blame, impartiality is particularly important since the fair attribution of praise or blame requires a neutral, judge-like impartiality. In many respects the historian is like a judge.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    See, DeBeer, Gibbon and His World,72–73, for a discussion of Gibbon’s limitations in the critical methods of source criticism.Google Scholar
  25. 27.
    Peter Gay, Style in History ( New York: W. W. Norton, 1974 ), 31.Google Scholar
  26. 28.
    Leo Braudy, Narrative Form in History and Fiction (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 13, writes that: “[allthough Gibbon is similar to Hume in many ways, he is a better historian because, perhaps taking his cue from Fielding, he departs from Hume’s false ideal of detachment.” (italics added) This is one of the more remarkable and, in my view, highly questionable claims of Braudy’s “revisionist” interpretation of Hume and Gibbon. The claim that Hume’s ideal of detachment is false reflects a rather dogmatic epistemological perspective and flies in the face of Hume’s remarkable achievement of highlighting the importance of attempting to transcend party and sectarian motivation in the writing of history. Also, it is not obvious, as Braudy suggests, that Gibbon did depart from his frequently stated ideal of detachment or impartiality in the writing of history. In Chapter forty-seven of the Decline and Fall,Gibbon opens with a long footnote critically evaluating his sources for their partiality. Braudy never states just when Gibbon departs from this ideal, nor does he cite any text in Gibbon’s writings where he repudiates it, explicitly or implicitly.Google Scholar
  27. 29.
    D. Miller, Philosophy and Ideology in Hume’s Political Thought,57. “Hume argues that moral judgements nevertheless have a basis in human nature, and are not merely the expression of arbitrary conventions enforced by social and political pressure.”Google Scholar
  28. 30.
    See Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, “Hume on Motivating Sentiments, the General Point of View, and the Inculcation of -Morality,”’ Hume Studies 20, no. 1 (April 1994): 37–58 for a discussion of two quite different interpretations of Hume’s moral theory, the “sentimentalist” version and the “ideal observer” reading. The “ideal” or “impartial observer” is closer to the one suggested here, although Radcliffe does attempt a mediation of the two.Google Scholar
  29. 31.
    David Jordan, “Gibbon’s ‘Age of Constantine’ and the Fall of Rome,” History and Theory: Studies in the Philosophy of History 8, no. 1 (1969): 78. “The age of Constantine was especially important for Gibbon because it marked the official establishment of Christianity in Europe, and Christianity was being hotly debated in the Enlightenment.”Google Scholar
  30. 32.
    Jordan, “Gibbon’s ‘Age of Constantine’ and the Fall of Rome,” 77–78, argues that Gibbon did not succeed in an impartial consideration of Constantine. “Gibbon’s view of the age of Constantine rests ultimately on his philosophic assumptions; and his antagonism to Christianity, which is far more complex than most commentators think, is a major ingredient in this philosophy…. Placid indifference, the detachment Gibbon recommended to all who would call themselves philosophers, he himself lacked in all discussions of religion, let alone fanaticism and religious enthusiasm. He would have us believe that he viewed religion with philosophic indifference. But philosophic indifference could hardly generate the passion that informs his treatment of Christianity and Constantine.” I think that Jordan overstates Gibbon’s impassioned discussion of religion. Certainly Gibbon was antagonistic to Christianity, but as Jordan himself suggests, this antagonism is complex. His harsh treatment of Constantine reflects his concern as a moralist to disapprobate the political corruption of Christianity. Other major political-Christians in the Decline and Fall (Athanasius, for example) fare much better.Google Scholar
  31. 33.
    For an excellent scholarly study of the role that skepticism plays in early modern theological polemics see Richard H. Popkin, The History of Scepticism From Erasmus to Spinoza (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  32. 34.
    Addinall, Philosophy and Biblical Interpretation,22, says of Hume: “[h]is aim was to show that self-conscious human reasoning does not have the significance in human thinking and experience which it is generally assumed to have, and that its contribution to knowledge is and must be more limited than has often been supposed.”Google Scholar
  33. 35.
    J. G. A. Pocock writes of Gibbon that: “[hlis early conversion to Catholicism and the subsequent growth of his irreligious skepticism separated Gibbon from the traditions of Anglican scholarship, which might well have claimed him otherwise; and he attached himself instead to the unfolding patterns of Enlightenment historiography, an international style in many respects, to which nevertheless the Scottish school was imparting a development both local and universal, and of great intellectual power.” Pocock, “Between Machiavelli and Hume: Gibbon as Civic Humanist and Philosophical Historian,” in Edward Gibbon and the ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 103.Google Scholar
  34. 36.
    Jaroslav Pelikan, The Excellent Empire: The Fall of Rome and The Triumph of the Church (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 39, “Gibbon was deliberately setting his work apart from the piety and orthodoxy of the apologists who had treated this subject matter before him and who, of course went on treating it in their own fashion long after him….”Google Scholar
  35. 37.
    This quote comes from the Hendel edition of Hume’s first Enquiry (Indianapolis, IN: BobbsMerrill, 1955), 34, which contains a section appended to “Section III, ”Of the Association of Ideas,“ that is not in the Selby-Bigge edition.Google Scholar
  36. 38.
    James Farr, “Hume, Hermeneutics, and History: A ‘Sympathetic ‘Account,” History and Theory: Studies in the Philosophy of History 17, no. 3 (1978): 288, says that Hume gives “a psychological analysis of the causal connection and a methodological analysis of causal explanation.”Google Scholar
  37. 39.
    See, Trevor-Roper, “The Historical Philosophy of the Enlightenment.”Google Scholar
  38. 40.
    Black, Art of History,101. Black here says that Hume works with a “false and mechanical psychology.”Google Scholar
  39. 41.
    Forbes, Hume’s Philosophical Politics,102, defends Hume against historicists like Black, Collingwood, and Meinecke, who charge him with a constricted, mechanized view of human nature which lacks a concrete, differentiating historical imagination, a defect also laid by some at Gibbon’s door.Google Scholar
  40. 42.
    Frederich Meinecke, Historicm: The Rise of a New Historical Outlook, trans. J. E. Anderson (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972 ). See specifically, Chapter five, “Enlightenment Historiography in England.”Google Scholar
  41. 43.
    See David Wooton, “Narrative, Irony, and Faith in Gibbon’s Decline and Fall,” History and Theory: Studies in the Philosophy of History,Theme Issue No. 33, Proof and Persuasion in History (1994): 102. Wooton challenges Womersley’s claim that Gibbon’s philosophic and hence skeptical view of religion evidenced early in the Decline and Fall dramatically dropped away in the later books. “Womersley requires us to believe that there is more than one occasion when Gibbon described what a philosopher would think yet did not intend to identify his own views with those of the philosopher. It would be tedious to show how this involves a misreading of Gibbon, who never (I would argue) became, as Womersley seems to think, uncritical of the miraculous.”Google Scholar
  42. 47.
    See also, Simon Evnine, “Hume, Conjectural History, and the Uniformity of Human Nature,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 31, no. 4 (October 1993): 589–606, for a discussion of Hume’s supposed anti-historical, timeless view of human nature. Evnine attempts to show that Hume’s view of human nature does accommodate historical diversity and change.Google Scholar
  43. 48.
    Womersley, The Transformation,182–91, 195–96, argues that it is in the last three volumes of Decline and Fall that Gibbon dramatically moves away from “causal” philosophic historiography to an embrace of particularity. In contrast to Womersley who sees great development and improvement in the latter half of the Decline and Fall,many of Gibbon’s interpreters, Bury being the most notable, have tended to view it as a much inferior production, given Gibbon’s lack of knowledge of the languages of the original sources.Google Scholar
  44. 49.
    Ernest Campbell Mossner, “Philosophy and Biography: The Case of David Hume,” Philosophical Review 59, no. 2 (April 1950): 184–85, points to a longstanding mode of Humean exegesis that attributes his move from writing philosophy (the Treatise as a very young man) to history to base and vainglorious motives. “The questioning of Hume’s motives, of his intellectual and moral integrity, began with some of his contemporaries in the second half of the eighteenth century.” Mossner then goes on to cite several eighteenth-century critics of Hume, Warburton for example, and some nineteenth-century ones as well, including J. S. Mill and T. H. Huxley. Also, there are twentieth-century writers who impugne his motives such as Victor Wexler, cited above.Google Scholar
  45. 50.
    Mossner cites John Herman Randall’s disparagement of Hume’s character. “Hume wrote for two motives: to make money, and to gain a literary reputation…. Philosophy was after all a rather narrow field; so he turned to history and wrote a good Tory history of the Stuarts because the Whigs were in power….”Google Scholar
  46. 51.
    See, Victor Wexler, “David Hume’s Discovery of a New Scene of Historical Thought,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 10, no. 2 (winter 1976/77): 185–86. “[Hume] maintained that it was not until his election as keeper of the Library of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh in 1752, that he ‘formed the plan of writing the History of England.’ Yet Hume first began to think about writing history at an earlier date. Between the publication of the Treatise in 1739 and his election to the post at the Library, Hume wrote several essays that were actually excursions into historical writing. ‘Of the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences’ (1742) and ‘Of the Populousness of Ancient Nations’ (1751), two of Hume’s arguments in behalf of cosmopolitan culture and modem civilization, are based on historical observation. Even the rather shallow essay ‘Of the Study of History’ (1742), which he later termed ‘frivolous’ and deleted from all editions of his works after 1746, gives evidence that he was concerned with history as a genre.”Google Scholar
  47. 58.
    J. W. Burrow, Gibbon (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 38. Burrow here writes of the long moralizing tradition of Roman history.Google Scholar
  48. 59.
    W. E. H. Lecky, “Edward Gibbon,” in Warner Library (New York: Warner, 1917), 11: 6273, writes that: “Gibbon excels all other English historians in symmetry, proportion, perspective and arrangement….” This is an excellent example of that balance and symmetry.Google Scholar
  49. 64.
    See F. W. Walbank, The Awefi l Revolution: The Decline of the Roman Empire in the West (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969), 46–47. “Thus behind the rosy hue of Gibbon’s picture of a prosperous Antonine world we are in a position to detect a least one notable weakness—the almost complete stagnation of technique.” Walbank argues that Gibbon’s description of the prosperity under the Antonines needs considerable qualification: there were major stagnating forces, in effect, since the time of Augustus, particularly slavery which was a major deterrent to technical innovation.Google Scholar
  50. 65.
    A somewhat pedestrian point that seems to belie Womersley’s claim that Gibbon abandons causality is that approximately the last twenty pages of the Decline and Full are given over by Gibbon to support his claim of four principal causes of the ruin of Rome. “I can discern four principal causes of the ruin of Rome, which continued to operate in a period of more than a thousand years.” (DF-71,VII, 317) Gibbon is not only affirming causes (discovered by himself the historian) but that they are at work for an entire millennium.Google Scholar
  51. 62.
    Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing ( Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1952 ), 21.Google Scholar
  52. 63.
    Lytton Strachey, Portraits in Miniature and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 1931), 161. In his chapter on Gibbon, Strachey writes: “Gibbon’s style is probably the most exclusive in literature.” He also quotes Samuel Coleridge on Gibbon: “Gibbon’s style is detestable; but it is not the worst thing about him.”Google Scholar
  53. 64.
    Hayden White, Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism ( Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978 ), 73–74.Google Scholar
  54. 65.
    D. C. Muecke, The Compass of Irony ( London: Methuen, 1969 ), 10.Google Scholar
  55. 66.
    For a detailed study of Hume’s use of irony see John Valdimir Price, The Ironic Hume ( Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1965 ).Google Scholar
  56. 67.
    A. E. Dyson, The Crazy Fabric: Essays in Irony ( London: Macmillan, 1965 ), 49.Google Scholar
  57. 70.
    W. B. Camochan, Gibbon’s Solitude (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987), 86. 71Hayden White, Metahistory (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1973), 55, calls Gibbon’s Decline and Fall,“the greatest achievement of sustained irony in the history of historical literature”.Google Scholar
  58. 72.
    Anthony Grafton, “The Footnote from De Thou to Ranke,” History and Theory: Studies in the Philosophy of History,Theme Issue 33, Proof and Persuasion in History (1994): 54. “The most ironic footnotes ever written run underneath the text of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall.... Gibbon’s footnotes amuse and bemuse—as does the fact that be originally meant them to be endnotes, and moved them only when Hume and others complained.”Google Scholar
  59. 73.
    Burrow, Gibbon,99–100. Also, Grafton, The Footnote from De Thou to Ranke,“ 57, makes the important observation that the footnote, with its underlying rationale of support and evidence for the text, is a fundamental mark of modem history. ”The presence of the footnotes is essential. They are the outward and visible signs of inward grace—the grace infused into history when it was transformed from an eloquent narrative created by•manipulating earlier chronicles into a critical discipline based on systematic scrutiny of original evidence and formal arguments for the preferability of one source to another.“Google Scholar
  60. 74.
    James D. Garrison, “Gibbon and the Treacherous Language of Panegyrics,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 11,no. 1 (fall 1977): 52.Google Scholar
  61. 76.
    Robert Pattison, The Triumph of Vulgarity: Rock Music in the Mirror of Romanticism ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1987 ).Google Scholar
  62. 77.
    See F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 24, where he speaks of “erroneous intellectualism,” a concept of reason divorced from nature and experience. “The conception of man deliberately building his civilization stems from an erroneous intellectualism that regards human reason as something standing outside nature and possessed of knowledge and reasoning capacity independent of experience.” While the object of Hayek’s criticism here is secular utopianized thinking, particularly socialist types, this type of thinking also has religious manifestations, which are the objects of Hume’s and Gibbon’s disdain.Google Scholar
  63. 79.
    In Dero A. Saunder’s introduction to The Portable Gibbon: the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,ed. Dero A. Saunders (New York: Penguin, 1977), 15, reference is made to a joking remark by Philip Guedella that it was in his footnotes that Gibbon lived out his sex life.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Paul Foster
    • 1
  1. 1.Central Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA

Personalised recommendations