Abstract
The formal definition and description of what we have termed ‘expository historiography’ in 1944 inevitably raised the problem of its relationship to technical history. It then also became necessary to establish the relationship between the writings that used providence as an explanatory device, and expository history, purporting to be the result of applying a strictly scientific generalising procedure to the concrete facts established by technical history. Were the writings explicitly referring to the idea of providence to be equated with expository historiography, or did they amount to yet a third mode of historiographical discourse? Butterfield answered this question in an address on ‘God in History’ given in August 1951, later partly amplified in ‘The Role of the Individual in History’ delivered in December 1953. Here for the first time he explicitly discussed the three ‘ways’ or ‘levels’ in which history should be viewed:
Concerning the events that take place … in history and in life there are three ways that we can have of looking at them … we can imagine them at three different levels and with three different kinds of analysis. And because they are taken at different levels they can all be true at the same time, just as you could have three different shapes of the same piece of wood if you took three different cross-sections. If you go on a journey, and … I ask: Why are you here now? you may answer: ‘Because I wanted to come’; or you may say: ‘Because a railway-train carried me here’; or you may say: ‘Because it is the will of God’; and all these things may be true at the same time — true on different levels.1
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Fulton H. Anderson, The Philosophy of Francis Bacon (1948), pp. 50–5, 289–90.
Leonard Krieger, Ranke: The Meaning of History (1977), p. 178.
RIH, 2–3. For ‘adding to the creation’, see Dorothy Walsh, ‘Philosophical Implications of the Historical Enterprise’, Journal of Philosophy 34 (1937), 57–64.
Edwin A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modem Physical Science (1925), esp. pp. 16–22.
Alexandre Koyré, Galileo Studies (1978), esp. pp. 157–62
Michael Stanford, The Nature of Historical Knowledge (1986), p. 99.
Thomas S. Kuhn, ‘The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research’, in Scientific Change, ed. Alistair C. Crombie (1963), pp. 347–69.
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (1962, second rev. edn 1970), esp. p. 85.
Thomas S. Kuhn, ‘The Relations Between History and History of Science’, Daedalus 100 (1971), 275, 301, n. 2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2005 Keith C. Sewell
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sewell, K.C. (2005). The Three Ways or Levels of History. In: Herbert Butterfield and the Interpretation of History. Studies in Modern History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000933_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000933_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-51978-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-00093-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)