by Giano Rocca
Chapter 24:
Official historians, and awareness of the necessity of the birth of the science of history
The official historians, such as for example Fustel de Coulange, define “feudal regime” what we defined: the feudal system. This is because, basically, they only admit the existence of the capitalist system, considered universally valid and universally present. They, namely, analyze the structural reality historical, and in particular the universe structural statual, as a fact structurally static.
Alfred Reginald Radcliffe - Brown stated that a distinction should be made between “historical explanation” and “theoretical understanding” (1). Had stated, in fact, that it is possible to speak of the first for the societies “historical”, which he its identification with the literal societies, while for the “societies pre-literal”, had considered that we can speak only of “theoretical understanding”, for the impossibility to build a historiography acceptable for these societies. The tools of philosophy of history, acquired at the academic level, do not even allow to speak of a true “understanding” theoretical for the structures statual, imagine if you can speak of “historical explanation”, if by this term is meant the understanding the evolutionary logic of statual structures, which allows to understand the past and the present and to predict the future (albeit within the margins set by mole of the variables in play).
William Herbert Dray had recognized as the historians use general laws, to cover their ideological model of historical survey (2). Edward Carr stated that : facts and interpretations are not separable, in so far as the facts would be already, interpretations of the phenomena (3). Hence the lack of objectivity of every historiography which does not provide scientific explanations (4). The analysis of the history accomplished with ideological intent is well exemplified by Robert Boutruche, which he recognized as the exchange between states, in the centuries IX and X, has not been not at all open (5). He, however, as many official historians, it avoided to draw the necessary consequences from such recognition. Boutruche, in fact, by the presence of some “merchants” and of some “coins”, in the centuries IX and X, although used for the operation of an “economy of consumption” (6) (namely, for the feudal economy), drew the absurd conclusion that in the West not there was “closed economy”, and that the latter is never existed, even in the “primitive societies” (7). This conclusion, time to deny each subdivision of the historical evolution in categories or stages, is justified only with the fear to undermine every justification of structural reality historic.
Historians, as Victor Mortet, they say that, with the feudalism, it is realized a servitude of land, more than a personal servitude. The fact that both the caste, and not a single individual of it such caste, at exercise the power both on the servant that on the means of production, suggests to these “historicals”, that the condition of the servants is better than that of the slaves. They deny, also, that the feudal lords exert a total power on the person of the servant, since, to this, it would provided the religious ideology; as if the religious hierarchy did not form part of the feudal hierarchy, in an inseparable manner, and the religious ideology is not the exclusive ideology of that type of society (to which, therefore, are submissive both: the servants as the feudal lords) (9). These historians, in consideration of the different etymological derivation of the terms “slave” and “servant”, they distinguished, sometimes, between the two terms, but since the term “servant” was introduced, in the West, after the X century, namely in an epoch in which the characters constituting the servitude were attenuated, or substantially processed, the “scholars of the history” they attribute, to the two terms, contradictory meanings and misleading (10), because nothing at all corresponding to the effective reality that they would plan to indicate.
Jacques Heers stated that historians, if they are not “Marxists”, refuse to classify, with the definition of social classes, social divisions of earlier epochs to that “modern” (11) and, even more, they avoid the use of the “theory Marxist” of the classes. Furthermore, had referred, as the same “Marxists”, in this regard, have doubts, and propose nuances and exceptions, or try to avoid its using, unless they are forced, if they live in the social systems “communists” (12).
Robert Boutruche, and historians in general, just to be able to say the uniqueness of the society “Feudal” European, and then, of be able to deny the essence of the “feudalism” of societies outside European, end up saying that “the organization of states and societies are based on foundations of subordination different from those of the vassals and by authentic feoffs” (13). This statement suggests that the existence, in Western Europe, of “feudal societies”, is the result of a mystery or anomaly. Some historians, in consideration of the easy observation that the first phase statual (after the establishment and the consolidation, of the universe structural statual) is, generally, the feudal phase, say that the “feudalism” is a necessary element for the formation of states “modern”. Boutruche had considered, the “feudal societies” outside Europe, expression of the decadence of the respective States (14), and this, although he had ascertained the existence of feudal phenomena in the presence of Member well solids. This ascertainment is not induced him, however, at to distinguish between the solidity of the states and the their economic and social decline. Boutruche had related the fact that historians, are able to identify many types and grades of societies “feudal”: “societies similars to the feudal society, initial feudalism, subsequent societies to feudalism, without forgetting the feudal societies who aborted and bastards; pullulan, still more, the following types: the feudal patriarchal societies, the feudal societies urban nomads, the societies feudal bureaucratic and the societies feudal, decentralised or centralised...” (15). This demonstrates how the historians are not far away from a correct interpretation of the structural reality statual and as, they are prevented from reaching its full understanding only by the ideological needs or the fear of de-legitimization of the same historical reality.
Some officers historians (such as J. Calmette) intuit the existence of historical laws and the existence of factors determining the historical evolution, that however they ignore, while considering, rightly, that such ignorance undermine seriously their same historical analysis (16).
Bruno Rizzi defined “historical ages” those that we have defined phases statual and spoke of the “ages within each age”, to indicate those that we have defined: the various social systems of the two phases statual. This, because he did not conceive fully the cyclicity statual, although he notice an evolution, now in progressive sense, now in the sense regressive, of which, however, he did not grasped the ineluctability nor the logic.
AJP Taylor quoted the payment of the “right to pasture” on the ground state property, that still exists in England in the era of his day, and stated that it was a survival of the universes structural of the previously existing types compared to the universe structural statual, legacy to the conquest on the part of the Normans, rather than a residue of what was once the subsequent feudal law of common possession of the earth. Taylor, from this observation, he had deducted the norm to analyze each made in the light of the entire previous history, so as to avoid provide plausible explanations, but false, of certain phenomena (17). Karl Popper and Dario Antiseri have considered scientific, the analysis “genetic” (namely the narration of events antecedents and converging), which is generally adopted by historians, since, according to them, would be explicative of the causes (18). In reality, the alleged scientificity of these explanations you can define only: “sketches of explanations”. This, because the events preceding, cannot be considered: surely causal events of the subsequent events.
Auguste Comte stated that when you will make a historical analysis really positive, namely scientific, it will become possible to predict rationally the future (19).
