In what ways, and why, did historians in the Middle Ages understand their task differently from modern historians?

In answering this question we must consider the purposes for which historians have written in the two ages together with the means they have been able to use in executing their task. As beliefs were very different in the medieval world,  there are many ways historians in the Middle Ages understood their task differently from modern historians. The Middle Ages can be divided into two distinct periods of historical writings. The early Middle Ages (5^th to 11^th centuries) and the high Middle Ages (11^th to 15^th centuries). The overall standard was much poorer in the first period, though there were notable exceptions such as the Venerable Bede and Einhard. The early Middle Ages has been described as ‘a  time of very profound cultural decline in Western Europe’[1].

With the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD, the traditions of classical education and literary culture, of which historiography was part, were severely disrupted. There are long periods for which there are virtually no narrative sources, the bulk of historical writings consisting merely of insufficient factual annals. The literate minority was even further reduced. Virtually all the writers were ecclesiastics. Hallam said ‘until the 13^th Century, the ability to read and write was the almost exclusive preserve of people in holy orders’[2]. Literacy became one of the professional skills of the clergy, who understood their task as being one to preserve and expand a learned, religious culture. The religious role of the monasteries often did not support the development of the analytical approach needed for sound historical practise and in many ways the fundamental belief in ‘the will of God’ mitigated against it. The monks’ lack of experience of the secular world outside their cloisters made them blinkered and unpractical historians.

The annals or chronicles kept by many monasteries, were often the anonymous work of generations of monks, which simply recorded whatever details the author knew of events, year by year, without no attempt at artistic or intellectual elaboration. The best that can be said about the early medieval annals, is that they preserve in a right order the essential facts, which could be rearranged into a continuous narrative. However, these facts need to be interpreted. The difference between the approaches to history of modern and Middle Ages historians  is evident in the copying of manuscripts. In the Middle Ages, if a religious community wanted to acquire a historical narrative, it copied some work that happened to be most readily accessible. A continuation might then be added by the copier. This new version might be copied and further altered by other writers. For example, there are at least six main versions of the annals called Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Such copying raises questions of accuracy. Were the copies exactly the same as the original work? There are obvious differences between this  approach and the approach of  the modern historian, aided by technology. The brilliant style of the Enlightenment mode of a personal, essay like history, such as Thomas Macaulay is very different to merely recording events.

Many medieval historians demonstrate little or no awareness of the process of historical change. Unlike modern historians, they did not possess the imagination to recapture the atmosphere of any earlier age that was substantially different from their own. The unawareness of the meaning of anachronism could explain the strange wanderings of medieval chronicles.

The greatest historian of the Middle Ages is considered to be the Venerable Bede. His Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (Ecclesiastical History of the English People), a history of England from the Roman occupation to 731, has been described as a ‘forceful and intelligent narrative[3]’. It integrates secular and ecclesiastical history, covering both natural and supernatural events. However  Bede’s intelligent approach was the exception rather than the rule in the early Middle Ages. Perhaps this was because, as the historians of the period were seriously affected by the cultural decline around them meant they had to write for a less cultured audience.

Like the modern historian, when Bede prepared his works, he meticulously assembled the broadest collection of sources possible, identifying these for the reader’s benefit. In his Ecclesiastical History, he says: 

In order to remove all occasions of doubt about those things I have written… I will make it my business to state briefly from what sources I have gained my information[4]

Bede gives a long and detailed list that includes documents copied for him by friends in Rome and Canterbury. Such collaboration among historians was unusual in the early Middle Ages. Bede also pioneered the system of dating events from the birth of Christ. The way he handles information is  so similar to the practices of modern historians and his tone so well-judged that the reader might mistake Bede for a modern historian.

Yet there are elements of Bede’s approach which are very different to those of a modern scholar.  For example,  he totally ignores every issue not connected with his main theme at the centre of which is a fundamental religious purpose. His Ecclesiastical History was written as a work of edification with the sole intention of reinforcing the faith of his readers in Divine Providence.

 Writing for a wider, less educated audience than most of his peers is a notable feature of Bede's works. Similarly the works of Sulpicius Severus, such as  his Life of St. Martin of Tours reached a wider audience than the educated Roman Christians it was intended for, because he recounted lives full of folklore and miracle, from which the real human personalities of the saints were virtually absent. This is obviously very different to the approach of the modern historian, where the truth is key.  In common with modern historians, Bede realised that he must adapt himself to his audience. He contended his simple Latin style was for the benefit of his Anglo-Saxon readers. There is a marked difference in the tone of his theological and his historical writings. As a theologian, Bede did not exaggerate the frequency of miracles. He believed that they were most common in the earliest days of Christianity. Yet both his Lives of the English Saints and his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum recount many visions and miracles. They occur on virtually every page. I think that Bede included them because he thought that his readers expected mentions of these familiar, traditional stories. If this is true then it evidence of a very different approach to the modern historian. Many chronicles contained various myths, rather than a clear and detailed narrative of events.  Hallam said that ‘in some cases authors clearly fabricated events which never happened[5]’, - the cardinal sin for today’s Historian. However, there were exceptions such as the clearly written chronology in Diecto’s Images of History.

Bede gave much encouragement for generations of historians. His influence was greatly felt during the later 8th and the 9th centuries in the Frankish kingdom, where, under Charlemagne and his successor, Louis, there was a modest revival of historical writing. There were other ambitious ventures in the early Middle Ages, for example, the Historia Langobardorum (History of the Lombards), written between 774 and 785 by Paul the Deacon. Also, Nithard, a grandson of Charlemagne, wrote an impressive narrative of the disintegration of the Carolingian state. The best medieval works were accounts of contemporary history by men who had participated in the events that they were describing. A good example of the difference in approach between modern and Medieval historians is Einhard's Vita Karoli Magni, or Life of Charlemagne, written between 829 and 836. Einhard’s approach is very different from a modern Historian. For example, he does not quote his sources. Consultation of contemporary sources is now seen as an essential law of historical construction. Einhard was a leading official and was very friendly with Charles. His work was intended as an extremely selective eulogy of the great king. Thorpe said Einhard ‘owed him a debt of gratitude’[6]. This partisan approach led to a distorted History. For example, Einhard claims that Charlemagne retreated safely from Spain, returning with his army safe and sound, except that on a ridge of the Pyrenees, on the way home, he happened to experience some small effects of Gascon perfidy. He omits that the Franks had narrowly escaped a major disaster. In his History Einhard on the whole echoes the story told in the semi-official contemporary annals. He does not investigate it as a modern Historian would. Thorpe says that Einhard ‘seems deliberately to obscure the truth, always in favour of Charlemange’[7] and that the book contains ‘many inaccuracies of a factual nature’[8]. Another example of omitting important events can be seen when Jean Froissart  embellished  the cruel realities of the Hundred Years War in ‘tales of romance and noble deeds of arms’[9].

Unlike their predecessors of the Middle Ages, Ranke, like many modern historians, aimed for a non-partisan, dispassionate objectivity as the historian's proper point of view. Modern historians are generally seen as independent from state unlike the Medieval protégée of court or church. However, evidence that Einhard understood his role to always tell the truth is that he states in his introduction, he would ‘omit nothing that is relevant[10]’. Einhard’s approach is very different to that of a modern historian.

There was undoubtedly an upsurge in the dynamism of intellectual and literary life in the High Middle Ages. Examples of great historical works of the time include those of  William of Malmesbury, Otto of Freising and Orderic Vitalis. Another example would be Jean de Joinville who in 1309 wrote his Life of Saint Louis ‘as a tribute to his loved friend’[11], and hero, the King. Joinville recorded the deeds of Louis IX of France, on crusade. Yet, unlike Einhard’s work of the early  Middle Ages, Joinville is prepared to judge his King’s actions negatively. This shows the difference in approach by the high Middle Ages. For example, Joinville criticises the King, arguing he should have distributed the spoil at Damietta and agreed to see his wife in Sido, shortly after she had given birth. The standard of Historical writing had undeniably improved towards the end of the Middle Ages, although the historians of the time still saw their task very differently to that of a modern historian. Perhaps the standard was lesser before the High Middle Ages because the early Middle Ages historians inherited merely the works of the Romans such as Tacitus, Livy, Cicero and the meagre  amount produced in the Dark Ages, whilst the later historians inherited the work of Bede and Einhard.

It is widely acknowledged that much of the modern historian’s approach to History developed in the 19th Century, the age of enlightenment. With the German, Leopold von Ranke, History achieved its identity as an independent academic discipline with its own critical method and approach, requiring rigorous preparation. This approach to History is very different to that of the Middle Ages. Ranke appreciated that all observers are the products of their specific time and place. He wanted to break history's ancient connection to the literary arts and align it with modern scientific research. I think the rise of science fundamentally changed the way historians understood their task. Many modern historians trace the intellectual foundations of their discipline to this development of the 19th-century German universities, which influenced historical scholarship throughout Europe and America. For example, they invented new ways of working, such as seminars.

In contrast to the Middle Ages, many modern historians believe that no accumulation of facts constitutes history as an intelligible structure, and no historian, however free from crude bias, can be a totally neutral, impersonal recorder of an objective reality. It is fair to say that these factors were not even considered and not applied to works of History in the Middle Ages.

The value of History is appreciated a lot more now than in Medieval times and this greatly affects the approaches of the modern historian. History was not taught in schools in Medieval times, belonging solely to the church and the rulers. This important difference between the two ages stems from the spread of universal education to most European countries in the course of the 19th century. For the first time the majority of historical writing came to be carried out by professional historians, for whom it became a condition of securing academic appointments or of consolidating their standings as university teachers. In the modern era, History is accepted everywhere as a necessary subject in schools. There are also thousands of museums. This vastly increased status lends a different approach. Now History is seen as ‘the greatest humanist medium of our time, educational and cultural’[12]. Thomson said History is now ‘an inherent part of western culture[13]’.

Middle Ages historians did not think that they were meant to explain and investigate. They never contemplated of the value of History. They just wrote what happened, in the way that the Bible does. This could be a result of the fact that they had read far less than a modern historian. Early medieval historians had often read little more than the Bible, ‘at the heart of all learned activity stood the Bible’[14]. In contrast to a modern historian the Middle Ages historian generally wrote rather than read history.

In the Middle Ages and indeed until the modern era, History never stood at the centre of any civilization. This lack of status given to History, meant it never claimed to provide an interpretation of human life as a whole. In the Middle Ages that was seen as  the function of religion and philosophy. Hence, History was written merely for the select few . In the modern era, with far more people being educated, historical works have a much wider audience and this affects the approach taken by the Historian. Many modern Historians like J.M Roberts and M. McCauley, contend they write for the general reader as well as the academic.

Unlike in the Middle Ages, Historians in the modern era use and attribute their sources. The work of Samuel R. Gardiner and Frederick W. Maitland established History as a professional field, resting on exact methods and utilising of archival collections and new sources of evidence. Crucially, there were no professional historians in the Middle Ages. A professional historian would approach Historical writing differently to a monk, or a ruler.

Compared to the Middle Ages, the scope of history has expanded immeasurably, in time, as archaeology and anthropology have provided knowledge of earlier ages. It is important that modern archaeological discoveries have told us a great deal about many civilizations. It has also expanded in breadth. New fields of inquiry entirely unknown in the past, for example,  economic history, familial history, gender history and psychohistory have emerged and refined a historians methods and goals. A modern historian such as Alan Bullock utilises economic, social, political and military History in his book Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. Another example of the widening breath would be the History of peasant societies, an area virtually ignored until the likes of R.Wolf wrote about it.

A difference between the eras is that, in modern times, Historiography has become continuously cooperative, meaning the achievements of past historians are being systematically used by their successors. Modern works of History often contain a long list of credits at the start for those who gave the author academic assistance. Another significant variation between the two ages stems from that  the growth of specialization and different types of works that came to be published. In the past, many important discoveries were frequently lost through lack of interest. In contrast, in the modern era, often discoveries are in danger of being overlooked due to the sheer quantity of material.

Much of modern historical writing springs from the stance that is very new in human experience: the assumption that the study of history is a natural, inevitable human activity. The modern Historian views History as an autonomous branch of learning and thinks that Historians should not try to formulate general laws; their branch of learning aims merely to explain reality. Langlois and Seignobos stressed that history is not a science of observation but a science of reasoning -  how to extract from imperfect documentary or narrative records some glimpses of what actually happened.

The Middle Ages historian often believed solely in the will of God. For example, all those who wrote for kings believed in Divine Right of Kings. The chronicler sought not to produce the rational and detached analyses of the Historian today, but to show the working out of God’s purpose in events. They assumed that events were either the will of God or the Devil rather than questioning events using cause and effect  like a modern historian.

Medieval Historians never thought about the History of the whole world. They lived in a much smaller world. However, the Crusades did bring civilisations together. The divisive effects of the 20^th Century world wars, lead to the ideal of a common international enterprise as has the rise of World History such as the work of Roberts and McNeil. World History studies world relationships as a whole. Thomson wrote that ‘20^th Century historical study was undeniably more world-wide than earlier history: to study one’s own country came to appear inadequate’[15].

It is an obvious, although significant point that so much has happened between the two eras which would affect the historian’s approach. For example the discovery of America and Marxist thinking both make historians think very differently about History.

Compared to the Middle Ages there a far greater level of variety within the historical discipline. By the 20th century there was certainly a very different approach to History than just copying out annals. The scope for History seems to be ever widening. Historians increasingly look to the social sciences—Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, and Economics (none of which existed  in the Middle Ages) for new methods and forms of explanation. Modern Historians do not only use words. For example, they employ photographs and sophisticated graphical data. Modern Historians have been influenced Adam Smith’s theories of economic and social development Freud’s psychoanalytic theory to history – obviously considerations absent from medieval history. Many scholars also focus upon the theoretical foundations of historical knowledge, in total contrast to the medieval Historian, who never considered such questions.

            There are many differences between the approach to History of the medieval times and the modern era. It is the disparity in levels of education and  the diversity in the importance of religion that led to the different approaches in the two ages.  I think there were many reasons why historians understood their task almost completely differently in the two ages. This was because they had a far narrower amount of information to research, a far smaller audience, an absence of investigative skills and a meagre inheritance of historical knowledge from the previous era.

Bibliography

• A.S Bullock, Hitler and Stalin, Parallel Lives, Harper Collins, 1991, London

• Einhard and Notler the Stammerer, Two Lives of Charlemagne, Penguin, Australia,
• 1969 (edited by Thorpe

• K. Fowler, The Hundred Years War, London, 1971.

• Hallam, The Plantagenet Chronicles, CLB books, Surrey, 1995

• Joinville & Villehardouin, Chronicles of the Crusades, Penguin, Australia, 1973

• McCauley, M. The Soviet Union since 1917, Longman, 1981, Hong Kong

• J.M. Roberts, The Penguin History of the world, 1992, Penguin books, London

• D.Thomson, The Aims of History: Values of the historical attitude, London, 1969

• E.R. Wolf,  Peasants,  New Jersey, 1966

Microsoft Encarta 2000 Articles on Historiography, Bede, Einhard, Joinville, Crusades, Charlemagne, Ranke

http://www.eb.com Accessed 17/4/00 Encyclopaedia articles on Bede, Historiography in the Middle Ages and the 19^th Century

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/einhard1.html Accessed 12/4/00 Einhard medieval Source Book