zagorin - carl becker on history professor becker's two histories.pdf

7/28/2019 Zagorin - Carl Becker on History Professor Becker's Two Histories.pdf

1/12

Carl Becker on History Professor Becker's Two Histories: A Skeptical Fallacy

Author(s): Perez ZagorinReviewed work(s):Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Oct., 1956), pp. 1-11Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1848508 .Accessed: 23/10/2012 08:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press andAmerican Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ahahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1848508?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1848508?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ahahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/12

H I STORI CALREVI EWVol.LXII, No.1 October,956Carl Becker nHistory

Professor ecker's wo Histories: Skeptical allacyPEREZ ZAGORIN

THE relation etween istorynd philosophys,on history'side t anyrate, perplexed nd ambivalent ne. Historians re commonlywarethat,whenone philosophympugns heir bility o obtainknowledge fthepast, t is only nother hilosophyhat an deliver hemfrom hecharge ndvindicate heir nquiry. et theaid thuscalled n or gratuitouslyffered asfrequentlyeen foundby historianso be an embarrassmentromwhich heywere glad to disengage hemselves.een fromthispoint of view,the his-torian's hought bouthis workhas theappearance f a series f effortsoemancipate imself rom asksundertakenr claims dvanced nconsequenceofthebeguilement hich omereigning hilosophical octrine asfor timeexercised pon him.

If we except he lonely nd isolatedVico, it is onlysince about the endof the eighteenthentury,n Kant, Herder,and Schiller, nd thenin thegreatspeculative onstructionsf German romanticmetaphysics,hatphi-I


3/12

2 Perez Zagorinlosophers ave beendisposed o accordhistoricalnquiry position f mpor-tance n the hierarchy fknowledge.And an important osition twas: thehistorianwas to be the enunciator f das Weltgerichtnd to disclosethecourse f EternalReason as it worked tself ut n thedoings f human ocie-ties.But such an undertaking,t was shortly ealized, ed to perverse ndartificial chemesof interpretationnd to unconscionable reedom n thetreatmentf evidence.And so, despitevariousgains which had accruedtohistoricalnquiry onductedwith thesevastends in view, historiansagerlydisencumberedhemselvesfprerogativeshey ould not ustain nd retreatedto a moremodest round.There followedthenanother ncounterwithphilosophy,n the form,now,ofpositivism. he fascination f tsdoctrine rovedmorepowerfulndlasting, or thad boththeprestige f natural ciencebehind t and seemedtofall nwith hat espect orfactwhichhistorians egard s an indispensableassumption f theirpursuit.Under the influence f positivism, istorianswere ed intoconceivingheirnquiry s modeledon thenatural ciences ndas properlyssuing, herefore,n laws. The program ntailed y thesenotionshas,however, lso had to be abandoned.No historianwho adopted t suc-ceeded in formulatingaws of historicaldevelopmentwhich his fellowscholars ould acceptor regard s strictlynalogous to what are called awsinthenatural ciences. he untenable istinction, oreover, hichpositivismmade between acts nd their nterpretationeduced he historian'smind toa mere ncident n the workof investigation,nd thiswas soon seento be athoroughlyalseaccountofwhat takes place in historicalnquiry.With the exposure f the inadequacyof thedogmatic laimsadvancedby positivist istorical hought, here et in among historians skepticismsuch as not infrequentlynsues n someminds when dogmahas been ex-pelled. f historys nota science n the senseof thenatural ciences,f theterminus f inquiry s not the establishmentf laws, if theinquirer's ub-jectivitys an essential eature n his cognition fthe past, henhowcan thehistorian ightlylaim to provideknowledge tall? Such questions,r some-thing ike them, re thehornsupon which thethinking f mosthistoriansbecame mpaled.'No doubt, hephilosopher-historiansn theidealist radi-tion,fromwhom the mostdestructiveriticisms f positivism riginated,

1 Cf. theremarks f Professor eardin his presidentialddress o the AmericanHistoricalAssociationn 1933: "That this crisis n thought resents distressing ilemmato manyhis-torians s beyond uestion. t is almost confession f inexpiable in to admit . . thatone isnot a man of scienceworking n a scientificmannerwith things pen to deterministicndinexorablereatment...." "Written istory t an ActofFaith,"American istonical Review,XXXIX January,934), 221-22.


4/12

Professor Becker's Two Histories 3having ever een n bondageo the atter, erenot haken y tsdownfall.Croce,nd ater ollingwood,o mentionwowell-knownnstances,iewedtheemancipationf historicalhoughtrom false cientisms a splendidliberationhichmust enderhehistorianupremen hisowndomain, otindebtedorhismethodsraims o some lienrealm utmakinghemnaccordance ith heunique haracterfhisownwork. ut thiswas not hecase of the ordinarynphilosophicistorian.e saw clearlynough hatthepositivistccount f historicalctivityas indefensible.et he hadbe-come ccustomedo think fthenaturalciencess themodel ponwhichany ruenquiry ust e formed;eprivedf hatmodel, ewasunable oputanythingn itsplace.He wasflatteredobe toldby somephilosophershathistoricalnquirys a pursuitutonomousnd suigeneris.ut he didnotliketheparadoxesn which hese hilosophersppearedo ndulge. e, forexample, as incorrigiblyttachedo the dea thatwhathe was studyingwasthepast s anindependentbject. hinkersuch s Croce, owever,ndMr.MichaelOakeshottnsistedhat every ruehistorys contemporaryhistory,"2nd that thepast n historyarieswith hepresent . . is thepresent."3he outcomewas that hehistorianelthimself,n thewhole,without reasonedustificationf hiswork.He might, o doubt, onsolehimselfy pointingo certain tilities e thought istoryouldsupply.Unable,nevertheless,o defendonvincinglyisclaim o provide enuineknowledge,e relapsednto skepticismn which e couldgeton withhiswork nlyby an act of faith.So far, t least, s American istoriansreconcerned,kepticismon-tinues obe theclimatefopinionn which ur work s done.The conse-quencesthatwhile tudentsreexhortedobelieventhehistorian'snowl-edge,they ommonlyecomenfected,nstead, ith heskepticaloubtsfromwhich heir eachersuffer.tillunhappythaving adefarewellothenatural ciencemodelofknowledge,uspiciouslso,perhaps,fphi-losophyecause f theerrors hey ccuse tof having reviouslyaisedntheirminds, hemajorityfAmerican istoriansantake efugenlyn thehope hatdisturbingheoreticalifficultiesill notprevent racticaleoplefrom ettingn with heir usiness. uthowever emay hunphilosophyand eek o shut ur yes othese ifficulties,rtopass hem erfunctorilyy,we cannot id ourselvesftheuncomfortablewarenesshat hey restillthere,ontinuingheir ubversiveork. t wouldbe prudent,herefore,oface hese ifficultiesquarely,or heres ess isk f rror hen hehistorian

2 History:ts Theory nd Practice, tr.D. Ainslie New York, 92 1), p. 12.3Experiencend ItsModes Cambridge, I933), p. 107.


5/12

4 Perez Zagorinisself-consciousbout henature nd presuppositionsfhis tudy hanwhenhe carriesn withdoctrinesnanalyzednd implicitlyccepted. ndbe-sides, hat henotions istoriansntertainbout heirnquiryave neffect,forgoodor ill,on theconductf their esearches,nyaccount f histori-ography illmake plain.Moreover,o long as the historians unable ovindicate isclaimto genuine nowledge,e will scarcelyavea rightocomplain fthedisrespector istoricalnquiry,he uspicionhat lio s toofickle muse o be steadfastn the erviceftruth, hichs part f the n-tellectualemperf thepresentge.Itiswith heseonsiderationsn mind hat proposeo examinehewell-known ssay y he ateProfessorarlBecker ntitledEverymanisOwnHistorian,"resentedn I93I as a presidentialddress o theAmericanHistorical ssociation.4ritten ithBecker'sustomaryitandgeniality,thisessaymaybe regardeds themostrepresentativexpressiony anAmericanistorianf that rolonged aladyfskepticismhich et fflictsus. Upon thosewhom t haspersuadedr whose iewst hasconfirmed,heeffect as beento drive rom heirminds he conceptionf historys ascience hile ubstitutingothingfa constructiveharactern tsplace. tsinfluence,oreover,asbeenthegreater ithhistoriansecausets uthorwas not philosopherho ould e charged ith ndulgingn fancieswingto an unfamiliarityith hehistorian'sork;hewas,rather, highlye-spectedmemberf their wn professionpeaking ohis colleaguesut ofrichpersonal xperiencef scholarship.hey couldnot but listen,hen,when heywere nformedhat heir nquirys, thoughn a more ophisti-catedplane, f the sameessence ndrooted n thesamenecessitiess theactivityf Mr. Everymaneeking o ascertainheextent f his coalbilland whetherr nothehad paid t. do notwish o be unfairo Becker. e,it splain,ntendedisremarkso demolishhe llusionfa coldobjectivitydisinterestedlyurveyingard acts,ywhich e supposedmost istoriansobe misledwhen hey eflectednthenatureftheirffice.ow this iew sto therelativityfhistoricalhought,hen orrectlyormulated,s notonewhich nyoneodaywould are o dispute. ut as Becker ropoundedt, twasenforcedy rgumentshich,ftrue,would eaveno basis ponwhichthehistorianould ightlylaim o possess nowledgefthepast.Andthatis whythe errorsas I think) ontainedn his positionall stronglyorcorrection.

4AmericanHistorical eview,XXXVII (January,932). I shallcitethisfrom hevolumeofBecker's ssaysbearing he same title, verymanHis Own Historian New York, 1935), pp.233-55.


6/12

ProfessorBecker's Two Histories 5Of the various pinions fferedyProfessorecker, shalldealwithonly ne,namely, hat, ollowingts author'sanguage,maybe called henotion f the two histories,istorys it actually as and historys it isknown o us. The other iewswhich e expressesre so closely ependentupon his nethat,f t canbe shown obe a mistake, e shallhave emovedthemost mportantupportf the kindofskepticisme was inculcating.Therewill, f course,till e other ifficultiesntheway fgiving credibledefensef thehistorian'sssumptionhat e hasknowledgefthepast. utthenotion f the wohistoriess so rooted conceptionnd s seeminglyomuchn accordwith ommon ense hat ffortpent n disclosingtsfalla-ciousnaturewill be well ustified.The passagen which henotion f thetwohistoriess stated ccurs nthebeginningfBecker'sssay nd, xcept or ome riflingeletions,shallreproducet verbatim:I oughtirstf lltoexplainhatwhen use he erm istorymean nowl-edge fhistory.o doubthroughoutllpast ime herectuallyccurredseriesof vents hich, hethereknowwhat twasornot,onstitutesistoryn someultimateense. evertheless,uch he reaterart f hese vents ecanknownothingbout, ot ven hathey ccurred; anyf hem e canknownlym-

perfectly;ndeven he ew vents e think e know orurewecannevereabsolutelyertainf, incewecannever evivehem,ever bserver test hemdirectly.heeventtselfnce ccurred,ut s an actualventt hasdisappeared;so thatndealing itht the nly bjectiveealityecanobservertests somematerialracewhich he vent as eft-usuallywrittenocument.ith hesetracesfvanishedvents,hese ocuments,emust econtentinceheyre llwehave; romhem e nfer hat he vent as,weaffirmhatt s a facthatthe vent as oand o. . . Let usthen dmithatherere wohistories:heactual eriesf ventshat nce ccurred;nd he deal erieshatweaffirmndhold nmemory.hefirsts absolutendunchanged-itaswhattwaswhat-everwe do or ay boutt;the econdsrelative,lways hangingnresponseothencreaserrefinementfknowledge.hetwo eriesorrespondore r ess,it sour im omake he orrespondences exact spossible;ut he ctual eriesof ventsxists or sonlyn termsfthe deal eries hich e affirmndholdinmemory.his swhy amforcedo dentifyistoryith nowledgefhistory.For llpracticalurposesistorys,for sandfor he ime eing, hatweknowittobe.5Beforeproceeding,et it be quite clear, hough his may be to labor theobvious,whytheview ustcitedwill, ftrue, lungeus intoa gulfofskepti-cismfromwhich here s no escaping.fthose ventsnthepast which, s wearetold, onstituteistoryn the ultimate enseare for he mostpartforeverbarred o us,and thosethat re accessible utfaintly nd obscurelyo, then,plainly, here s no groundforassertingwe have knowledge f them.The5 Everyman,p. 233-34.


7/12

6 Perez Zagorinhistorianupposeshat t is the pasthe is reconstructing.nce postulate,however,past s actuality hich sin no way ccessibleohim, nd hewillcertainlye unable o know t. t isbut n nconsequentompromise,evoidof logic, orBecker o tellus of a correspondence,hichwe seek o makemore xact, etweenhe wo series, istorys it actually as and historyswe know t. If we can neverknowthe first eries, istorys it actuallywas,we shall ertainlyever e ableto determinehetherheres any or-respondenceetweent and the econd eries.Against ecker'sontention,shall ndeavoro how hat heres only nehistory,hatwhichs known romhe vidence resentlyefore s, nd thatthenotion f he wohistoriesr eriess notmerely rongutunintelligible.From histwill ollowhatwhen he istorian,aving is videnceeforeim,declareswhatthisevidence auseshim to conclude, e will then whileadditionalvidence as still o be established) now ll that heres atthemomentobeknown.Why,t suseful oaskat theoutset,oes ommonense ppear,t firstsight,o be n accordwith henotionfthe wohistories?he answersnotdifficult.e see,on theone hand, hat he tatementse make bout hepastchange, hile, n theother and,we cannot elieve hepastchanges.Whathappened,appened,ndwillbeever he ame,we suppose,houghwhatwethinks now his nd nowthat.f,however,ommonenses rightin this onviction,tcannotwithoutbsurdityormhenotion fthetwohistories.This willbe apparenttoncewhenwelook loselyt theremark hichdeclareshat therectuallyccurredseries fevents hich . . constituteshistoryn someultimateense," utthat much hegreater art f theseevents e canknownothingbout, ot ven hat hey ccurred... "Whatthis ells s is that ventsccurredutwecannot now hey ccurred;ndthat s a plaincontradiction.ne mightwith qual sense ay, lightningstruck,ut cannot now t struck."t ismerelynintelligibleo denyyoucanknow n event asoccurred henyouhave lreadyffirmedtsoccur-rence. his is the ort fcontradictionhich ntirelyitiateshenotionfthetwohistories.o distinguishhistorys itactually asfrom historyas youknow trequireshatyouknow t least nerespect hereinhe wodiffer.utyouwillknow hat nly fyouknow omethingfhistorys itactually as.Suppose ou replyhatyou an know omethingf historysit actuallywas. This history,hen,will be a historynown o you, ndagainBecker's istinctionillbreakdown.All this implyhows hat hedistinctionetweenhe wohistoriesslackingnsense. o affirmomething


8/12

ProfessorBecker's Two Histories 7as unknowables in somewayto know t, nd this s ustwhatBecker asdeclareds impossibleor s.What has induced ecker o speak n this trange ay? t is the dif-ference,lready eferredo,which ommonensemakes etween past hatdoesnot hange ndourknowledgef t,which oes.But his ifferencean-not ntail henotion f the wohistories,ince hat, e have een, s a con-tradiction.t rests, ather,n thefact hatwe feel urcognition ay rrorthat tsreconstructionf thepast s incomplete,o thatmore emains or stoknow.This "more," owever,s not sort f essencer mpalpablecto-plasm,hepast s itactually as,hovering ysteriouslyehind he vidence,which nowledgean never ttain o. t signifies erelyuestions emayputabout he ubjectf our nquiry hich hepresenttate f the videncewillnotpermits toanswer. ndsimilarly,e conclude ehavemade nerror hen newanswerwe haveobtained romvidences out of accordwith n answerwe havepreviouslyiven,with heresult hatwe must e-considernd revisewhatwe haveoncethoughtorrect. ut from hefactthatwe revise,rsayourknowledges incomplete,e maynotdeterminethatwe knownothingfthe ubjectfour tudyasit actually as."Thereis, s a little eflectionufficeso show, o differencehatever,xcept neofrhetoricalmphasis,etweenaying hatwe know n event nd saying hatwe know n event s it actually as. Nothing s containedn the secondstatementhich snot lreadyncludednthefirst.fknowing e taken omean-and where nquirys concerned,thinkt must-notions e formfrom he considerationf evidence,o that, iven he evidence, e formthesenotions nd no others, henwe can be said to know anythingorwhichwe have vidence,nd to know t so far s this videncextends.Becker, owever,eels ut ittle onfidencen theknowledge eprofesstohaveofthepastbecause, einformss,the vents hich omprisetaredeadandcan never e revivednd observed irectly;ndealingwith hem,we makeuseof"somematerialrace . . usually writtenocument,"ndwith hese raceswemust e contentince hey re all we have. . ." Onthis howing,heobjects fdirect bservationreprivileged,o that heyalonebear full itle othename fknowledge.nly fthehistorian,hen,could eproducehe ubjectf his nquirytwill, s the hemistoes nhislaboratory,nlyfhecould, or xample,ummonhe ongParliamentackto ife nd witnesststransactions,ouldhebe saidtoknow.Thisview, ninstancefthehistorian'senaciousonging or henatural cienceoncep-tionof knowledge, ust,however,e pronounced ereprejudice.Whyshould henameofknowledgee reservedspeciallyor hatwhich s di-


9/12

8 Perez Zagorinrectlybserved?What s known y inferences quiteas fully nown swhat s directlybserved.t is,besides,much o bedoubtedwhether,itherin the ransactionsf ordinaryife r n learnednquiry,heres any ctofso-calledirect bservationn which nferences notalso present. e fre-quentlyorget,oo,howoften,ven nthenaturalciences,tatementson-cerningheremoteast remadefrom heevidencef "tracesfvanishedevents."he geologist ho nfers ow and when tratawere aid down nagesbeforeman, he alaeontologisthoreconstructshe volutionf xtinctspecies,he stronomerho ttemptso explainhe riginfour olar ystem-none ofthesenvestigatorsasobservedheevents e is engagedn ex-plaining, etwe do noton that ccount hink heir onclusionsreweak-enedor deny hem hename fknowledge.6When t ssaid hatwe must e content ith he races fvanishedventsbecause hese reall wehave, s ifthis laced s in a patheticrux,wecanonly eply hat hey reall we need; for races reevidence,nd evidenceis whatwe requirenorder o haveknowledge.yhispreferenceor irectobservation,ecker as excludedr, t anyrate,minimized,heroleof re-flectivehought,hich s the ssentialngredientntheformationfknowl-edge nbothhistorynd thenatural ciences, hatevere thenaturef theevidence romwhich t derives. his preference,erhaps,s whathas ledhimfurthern in hisessay o define istory istakenly,think,s "thememoryfthingsaid nddone."'Various bjections ightustlye odgedagainst his definition,ven when t has been subsequentlyualified yBeckers"thememoryfeventsnferred"swell s those bserved.8ssen-tialas memorys to thought,istoryanno morebe welldefineds thememoryfthingsaidand donethan anmathematicss the memoryfequationsalculatedr physicss the memoryfexperimentserformed.Were history emory,hebesthistorianouldbe he whohad the argest

6 These instances rom henatural ciences o not, t is true, nvolve nference romverbalevidence, s doesso muchofthehistorian's ork.Butthere s one branch fhistoricalnquirynwhich verbal evidence s sometimes ntirely xcluded. mean archaeology. hus ProfessorRostovtzeff rites: There s no doubt that he Greek ities f South Russia ed a purelyGreeklife, t least n the sixth,fifth,nd fourth enturies .C. The cities themselves ere built inGreekfashion.A large amountof Greekbuildingmaterial, speciallymportedmarble,wasemployed or the constructionf temples nd public buildings n thesecities, nd importedmarbles nd bronze statueswere extensivelysed in the adornmentf temples nd publicsquares. . . Most of the better ottery as imported,s were also many amps and some ofthe terracottatatuettes.t is very robable, oo,thatmostof the armour nd weapons, he gold,silver, nd bronzeplate,the gold and silver ewels,thegemsand intaglios, ere mportations."(The SocialandEconomicHistory ftheHellenisticWorld 3 vols.,Oxford, 941], I, io6-I07.)Correct r not,thisviewrespectinghe North-Ponticreek ities s basedon evidencewhich snotverbal nd which, herefore,losely esembleshat f thegeologist rpalaeontologist.7 Everyman, . 235.8 Ibid.


10/12

ProfessorBecker's Two Histories 9memoryf things.his s, of course, ot o. Historys distinguishedy tscharacters an inquiry ith tsownmethodsndaims nd subjectmatter;one s a historianf hepursues his nquiry,nd thebesthistorians he whopursuestbest. t is a mistake o describe istorys memory,n howeverextended sense he erm e taken, ecausememorytselfs uncriticalndunreflective,hile hehistorian'shought,s we know, s justthereverse.The historianeflectsponhisevidence. t the utset e has only awdata,scraps f parchment,nscriptions,etters,odices, amphlets,r what-not,and he himself ust onstitutehese s evidencend decidewhat hey reevidence or.Then he interrogatesnd criticizesheevidence e has thusestablished.nly nowwill he knowwhathemust hink. hat theeventwithwhich e deals s onehehashimselfbservedoesnotexonerateimfromhe ask freflectionhich lone nables im o reach isconclusions.We canonly milewhen, or xample,we are informedythehistorianJosephus,Myownrecordfthe Judeo-Roman]aras a whole ndoftheincidentaletailss correct,ince wasa first andwitnessf llthe vents."'The fact sthat,n ts ssentials,henature fhistoricalnquirysquiteunaf-fectedywhetherursubjects onewehaveourselveseenwell ituatedoobserveroneremote rom s n time. he processf hehistorian'shoughtis the amewhenhewrites historyf naval ctionsn theSecondWorldWar or in thewarof theGreeks gainst ersia, houghn thefirstnstancethe vidences, f ourse,armore bundant.In the ight f whathas alreadyeen aid, t seasy oseewhatwehaveinmindwhenwe say, s we occasionallyo,that omethingsunknowable.We mean hatwe think tunlikely e shall verhaveevidenceo answersome uestionrother hich as uggestedtselfous. But hiss a differentsort funknowablerom hat f which ecker peaks. or theunknowabletowhichwe refer resupposesnowledge;t is a learned gnorance. eknow omethingecausewe have vidence;hisknowledgeeadsus in turntoask a new question;we believe he vidence ithwhich oanswerhisquestion ill notbe forthcoming;e then oncludehatwhatwe wish oknow s unknowable.his, think,s theonly ensewhich an be attachedto such statements that onecanknow hatmany hings avehappenedof which orecordemains."learly, e must ave heknowledge,t east,of the xistencefan eventfweare o askany uestionst all respectingt,evenquestionso which heremaybe no answer.We find, or nstance,Professorostovtzeffriting:Suchbeing he videncetourdisposal, e

9Citedfrom A Replyto Apion" in A. J.Toynbee,A StudyofHistory 6 vols.,Oxford,1935-39), III,295.


11/12

10 Perez Zagorinmust dmit hat t doesnot llow s to formven n approximatedea fthe ensityf he opulationf heHellenisticorld,f ts luctuations,rofthe elativeizeofthe ariouslementsn the opulation,uch s the ro-portionffree itizenso meticsnd lavesn the ities,ndofnativesoimmigrantsn the astern onarchies."10ere hevery xistencef theHellenisticorld nknowno us, s the ndus ivilizationt HarappandMohenjo-Daroasunknownntil little ver hirtyearsgo,weshouldnot eable o ay hatts opulationannote scertained.ather,e houldsimplyave obe silent,or o questionould ccur o us. t s alsoworthnotinghatn speakingf omethings unknowable,efrequentlyncurcertainisk.May t not e that n the uture e shall iscovervidenceoanswer question e had believed nanswerable?o doubt, herehequestions oneof thepopulationfancientocietiesr even fEuropeanstatess ate s the nd f he ighteenthenturynd fter, eseemn afeenoughroundnpronouncingtunanswerable.hehistoryf earning,ow-ever,sfilled ithensationaliscoveries,uch s the ndus ivilization,hichshow owmistakenverdictfunknowableay ometimese.Beckerhinksurfindingsshistoriansomethingess han nowledgebecauseevenhe ew vents e think eknow orurewecannever eabsolutelyertainf."Andherewe encounternotuncommoniew,hatthemarkfknowledgescertainty.his annoteso,however,f ertaintyis understoodnitsproperense s attachingopropositionsot pen odoubt,or n everympiricaltudyt srecognizedhat heresnofindingwhichmay ot,nprinciple,e doubted.trictlypeaking,he nly ertainstatementsrenecessaryropositions.t scertainhat wicewo quals ourbecausehis onclusionustollowromurdefinitionf wo. houghhestatementsffactnwhichhe istorianeals annotecertainnthisense,theyrenoneheess nowledgeorhat.Weneed ot aveertaintynordertoknow; or fweagreehat nowledgeonsistsf deas orwhich ecanshowvidence,hen ehaveknowledgeo far sour videncextendsndinproportions t s good.Werewetomake ertaintycriterionfknowl-edge,wecouldneverpeak,s weproudlyo,ofourknowledges pro-gressing.nstead,veryldconclusionxpungedy reshnquiry,nd verynew ne ssertedn ts tead, ould ethoughtdisasteratherhan tri-umph.Whethercquiredy he istorianr he aturalcientist,nowledgeis, nprinciple,lwayspen odoubt,ince he vidence ay ave eenmis-understoodrbecause ew videnceet obeestablisheday equirehe

10 HellenisticWorld, I, 1142.


12/12

ProfessorBecker's Two Histories I Irevisionfourconclusions.he sameprocess, owever, hich reatesurdoubt,lsoassuagest,namely,onsiderationfevidence.

Thoughwemay lways oubt, e do not lwayswish odoso,for herearemany tatementshehistorian akes hat re supportedyevidenceostrongs toendow hemwith characterfvirtualertainty.e arenot,for xample, isposed o doubt hatAlexander fMacedonwon thebattleof ssusorNapoleon hebattle fAusterlitz,hat heemperor enryVsoughtbsolutionrom opeGregory II orthat rancis fAssisi oundeda mendicantrder,hatCharles was putto death y a revolutionaryri-bunalor that heearlofClarendon as impeached.hese, t is true, rerelativelyimpletatements,ndthehistorianannotonfineimselfothemwhenhe is fully ischargingis taskof giving n account f events nwhichheiroursesexplained.utnot venn the atterasedo hisremarksnecessarilyose their haracterf virtual ertainty.f thisorder, erhaps,might e such ssertionss thatGreeceost ts ndependenceecausehe itystates ouldnoteffectivelynite; hat, n theWest,monasticismreservedthe iteraryearningfthe ncient orld fterhepassingfRoman ociety;or that ationalismelped omakeunstablehe ettlementaid down t theCongressfVienna. n general,here s probablymore onsensusmonghistorianshanwe areinclinedobelieve.I havenowshown, hope, hat henotion fthe wohistoriesillnotsurviveriticism,nd thatfwewish ospeakntelligibly,e canspeak nlyofonehistory,hat orwhich heresevidence.erhaps shallnowbe toldthat his swhatBecker asmaintainedll thetime, or,t the ndof theparagraph hichwas quoted t thebeginningf this ssay, e declares:"Forallpracticalurposes istorys,for sand for he ime eing,whatweknow tto be."The twoviews, owever,requitedissimilar.ecker'son-clusions theoffspringfhisdespair.t is thestonehe has resolvedocontent imself ith n lieu of the breadhe has found nattainable.emust ndbydescribingistorys whatwe know t to be becausehe hasgiven pallhope fseizing hat lusive hantom,istorys it actually as,in whose xistencee has notfor momenteased obelieve.We,however,if ourargumentas beensound, averecognizedhisphantom orwhatit s, nothing,"very oinage fthebrain," "bodilessreation." e haveseen hat, ehind he vidence,hereanbe nophantomistorys itactuallywas.When, hen, ehave earned hat he vidence astoteach s,wehavetherebycquiredhe ubstancefknowledge.McGillUniversity

zagorin - carl becker on history professor becker's two histories.pdf

Documents