From Herodotus on through to the modern age, the study and documentation of history has taken on many forms. In many ways a historical work reflects the society that produces it – its beliefs, priorities, and aspirations. Renaissance interpretations of history similarly point to the overall ethos that took hold during this era, but additionally foreshadow modern approaches to the discipline.
Setting New Boundaries
In contrast to medieval scholars, who envisioned the birth of Jesus Christ as the sole dividing point in history, Renaissance historians, influenced by a new humanist worldview, conceived of two sharp chronological breaks: 1) between antiquity and the “dark ages,” and 2) between the “dark middle ages” and their own period. The Christian Incarnation was thus no longer the decisive moment of discontinuity with focus shifting instead to the religious conversion of Emperor Constantine and the barbarian invasions of Rome. This new tripartite division of history was not merely a structural realignment, but also an inherent value judgment.
Demarcating Light and Dark
Humanist historians in the 16th century effectively reversed the traditional metaphors of light and darkness that had held sway for hundreds of years prior. Previous scribes, working under the patronage of the Catholic Church, regarded antiquity as an age of darkness due to pagan error. Under the new historical scheme, however, this ignoble designation transferred to the period following the decline of Rome. Moreover, humanist scholars regarded their own age as one of light after darkness—a renaissance. Their revisions thus incorporated a pair of cultural tides that spread across Europe during the sixteenth century.
A New Take on Ancient Rome
Whereas their counterparts from the Middle Ages regarded themselves as contemporaries of the Roman Empire, Renaissance historians approached the study of this imperial epoch with a measure of intellectual distance. This standard, on which the modern academic study of history depends, allowed scholars of this age to gain a better perspective on both Roman society and their own times. They were therefore able to recognize those attributes that allowed ancient Rome to excel and sought to incorporate them into their own culture.
Through their selective (sometimes subjective) narratives, Renaissance historians in effect paralleled their Roman counterparts. While not expected to falsify facts, these scholars were nonetheless discouraged from uncovering “new” facts that could damage their society’s legacy. This approach to the past is evident, for instance, in Niccolo Machiavelli’s History of Florence, pennedbetween 1520 and 1525.
Reflecting Europe’s Changing Values
Historical writing during this period also reflected the growing secularization of ideas. Works of history, no longer bound by a religious framework, became more attune to worldly political matters. This new orientation led historians to limit their narratives to a single state or region and concentrate on events that might help their contemporaries better handle diplomatic and military dilemmas.
Despite these non-academic ends, scholars during this period nonetheless considered history as a disciplinary branch of rhetoric, thereby developing more scientific studies of the past. This trend sharply contrasts with medieval practices that regarded history as a branch of theology, and consequently sought scriptural justifications. Indeed, the beginnings of critical historical scholarship can be traced back to historiographical shifts during the Italian Renaissance.
Sources:
Gilbert, Felix, Machiavelli and Guicciardini (New Jersey: Princeton Univ. Press, 1965)
Machiavelli, Niccolo, History of Florence and of the Affairs of Italy
Youssef Chouhoud - I’m a young(ish) Muslim-American from Brooklyn, New York by way of Alexandria, Egypt. Part consultant, part freelance writer, my ...
Join the Conversation