Everybody knows that "history" takes place in the past. But is it that simple? Whether you recall a recent event in your life or read an ancient history book your experience is the same in that it all takes place in the present moment. This problem of the historical past has given rise to a complex philosophy of history. Historians and philosophers differ widely in their respective concepts.
Medieval religious historians such as St. Augustine in his City of God, speculated that history is a process with a purpose, a divine plan or progressive development for the human race. In the 20th century, historians, such as Spengler and Toynbee, have continued to search for significant patterns in history. Other secular historians, however, focus more on specific persons and events as unrepeatable "happenings" with no overall pattern or linear, progressive development. But the attempt to apply scientific methodology to the study of history also has its strong critics who claim that human beings and their actions, the real subject matter of history, cannot be properly analyzed in scientific terms but require a radically different approach.
The historian or philosopher of history also faces the problem of objectivity and valuation. Some historians, such as Julius Caesar in his war commentaries, or more recently, Winston Churchill, actually participated in the events about which they wrote. But most historians not only have to reconstruct their accounts from various "historical" records but they have to be selective in their choice of subject.
Through an imaginative reconstruction the historian reinterprets the historical "facts" and presents a coherent storyline for the reader. The result may lie somewhere between historical narrative and fictional narrative, depending on the skill or bias of the writer.
The Greeks were probably the first to invent history-writing as we know it, although of course the Romans also developed it to a high degree. Herodotus, the first major historian of whom we have knowledge, has been referred to both as the "Father of History" and the "Father of Lies". For while he accepted and incorporated into his history of the Persian Wars, stories which we would regard as simply fantastic, he also showed a critical skepticism. For example, the Greeks believed that the winds answered their prayers by falling upon the enemy ships in 480 BC. Herodotus duly records the event adding "I cannot say for sure." Herodotus believed implicitly in fate and just retribution, which colored his view of history but he earned his title as the "Father of History".
Thucydides, the historian of the Peloponnesian War between Greece and Sparta, wrote a more straightforward "lineal" form of history but he also put very difficult speeches into the mouths of speakers he could not possibly have heard firsthand. This was considered a legitimate form of writing history because he composed what a particular politician or general might reasonably have been expected to say on that specific occasion. In inventing speeches that were significantly different from the historical narrative both Herodotus and Thucydides were influenced by the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey.
Early Celtic civilization in Europe was wiped out by Caesar's Roman legions but much was preserved in the medieval monasteries of Ireland. The Lebor Gabala Erenn (The Book of the Taking of Ireland) contains a wealth of Irish Origin Legends purporting to trace the history of the successive colonists of Ireland back to Adam. The result is an elaborate and highly imaginative reconstruction of "fictional" Irish history, an amalgamation of classical learning, church history and traditional lore.
The earliest verifiable date in Irish history is the mission of Bishop Palladius to Ireland in AD 431, when he introduced both Christianity and the Latin alphabet. However, we do know a great deal about Celtic history before this date from archaeology, linguistics and sources, but some Celtic scholars believe that "real" history begins only with the introduction of writing. However, the oral tradition and the art of memorization have always been very strong among the Celts. Caesar reported that the Celtic Druids in Europe spent up to twenty years memorizing their history and traditional lore. One might therefore argue that Irish Origin Legends provided a kind of alternate history which served its purpose well at the time.
Historical writing did not develop to any great extent in India. The early history of ancient India has to be reconstructed from religious and secular works, inscriptions of reigning monarchs and their ancestors, and the reports of travelers. Indeed some critics claim that India had no sense of history at all. It is true that few dates before the middle ages can be fixed with any certainty and much has to be pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle. Obviously Indian religion, art, language and literature did not develop in a vacuum but the purpose was different from that in Europe and so was the emphasis.
The famous communications guru Marshall McLuhan once said "the medium was the message." In the case of ancient Indian philosophy at least the message was more important than the medium, for we do not know the names of the composers of the Upanishads, for example, or the detailed circumstances of their composition. The concept of history in India, or lack of same, arose out of prevailing socio-economic and political conditions and is simply an alternate way of viewing historical "facts".
In Part Two we shall examine in greater detail the Mesoamerican concept of history with special reference to the Maya and the Aztecs with a sideline on the fictional writing of alternate histories.
