"Universal history, the history of what man has accomplished in this world,is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here," wrote theVictorian sage Thomas Carlyle. Well, not any more it is not.
Suddenly, Britain looks to have fallen out with its favorite historical form.This could be no more than a passing literary craze, but it also points to a broadertruth about how we now approach the past: less concerned with learning from ourforefathers and more interested in feeling their pain. Today, we want empathy, notinspiration.
From the earliest days of the Renaissance, the writing of history meantrecounting the exemplary lives of great men. In 1337, Petrarch began work on hisrambling writing De Viris Illustribus- On Famous Men, highlighting the virtus(or virtue) of classical heroes. Petrarch celebrated their greatness in conqueringfortune and rising to the top. This was the biographical tradition which NiccoloMachiavelli turned on its head. In The Prince, he championed cunning,ruthlessness, and boldness, rather than virtue, mercy and justice, as the skills ofsuccessful leaders.
Over time, the attributes of greatness shifted. The Romantics commemoratedthe leading painters and authors of their day, stressing the uniqueness of theartist's personal experience rather than public glory. By contrast, the Victorianauthor Samuel Smiles wrote Self -Help as a catalogue of the worthy lives ofengineers, industrialists and explorers. “The valuable examples which they furnishof the power of self-help, of patient purpose, resolute working, and steadfastintegrity, issuing in the formation of truly noble and manly character, exhibit,"wrote Smiles, “what it is in the power of each to accomplish for himself." Hisbiographies of James Watt, Richard Arkwright and Josiah Wedgwood were heldup as beacons to guide the working man through his difficult life.
This was all a bit bourgeois for Thomas Carlyle, who focused his biographies
on the truly heroic lives of Martin Luther, Oliver Cromwell and NapoleonBonaparte. These epochal figures represented lives hard to imitate, but to beacknowledged as possessing higher authority than mere mortals.
Not everyone was convinced by such bombast. “The history of all hithertoexisting society is the history of class struggles," wrote Marx and Engels in The
Communist Manifesto. For them, history did nothing, it possessed no immensewealth nor waged battles: “It is man, real, living man who does all that." Andhistory should be the story of the masses and their record of struggle, As such, itneeded to appreciate the economic realities, the social contexts and powerrelations in which each epoch stood. For:“Men make their own history, but theydo not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosenby themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmittedfrom the past."eolsunugpbtplandbnelesdtodTotoogeongodintbo
This was the tradition which revolutionised our appreciation of the past. Inplace of Thomas Carlyle, Britain nurtured Christopher Hill, EP Thompson andEric Hobsbawm. History from below stood alongside biographies of great men.Whole eW realms of understanding -from gender to race to cultural studies -were opened up as scholars unpicked the multiplicity of lost societies. And ittransformed public history too: downstairs became just as fascinating as upstairs.
[A] emphasized the virtue of classical heroes.41. Petrarch [B] highlighted the public glory of the leading
artists.
42. Niccolo Machiavelli [C] focused on epochal figures whose lives were
hard to imitate.
43. Samuel Smiles [D] opened up new realms of understanding the
great men in history.
44. Thomas Carlyle [E] held that history should be the story of the
masses and their record of struggle.
45. Marx and Engels [F] dismissed virtue as unnecessary for successful
leaders.
[G] depicted the worthy lives of engineers,
industrialists and explorers.
