Velsov Nacrt istorije, 1920-2020: stogodišnjica najčitanijeg modernog istorijskog dela

Abstract

Rad analizira Nacrt istorije Herberta Džordža Velsa, izvorno publikovan 1919. i 1920. godine, knjigu koja predstavlja najčitaniji i najpopularniji istorijski pregled napisan u XX veku. Ispituju se okolnosti i motivi za nastanak ovog dela, od strane pisca koji nije bio akademski istoričar. Istražuju se i uzroci ogromne popularnosti dela, kao i poreklo i opravdanost preovlađujuće negativne kritičke reakcije ondašnjih profesionalnih istoričara. Izvestan prostor je posvećen i analizi kasnijeg uticaja ovog rada, kao i poruka i zaključaka koje se mogu primeniti na savremene pokušaje pisanja svetske istorije.

The Outline of History by H. G. Wells (1866–1946) is by far the most popular and well received historical work of the 20th century. It is also one of the rare attempts by an individual author to write such an ambitious history, world history in the proper sense of the word, and to add something new and original to it. Though there were many earlier attempts, in many respect this work was one of the kind when it was published during 1919 (as a serial publication) and 1920 (as two volume edition). It met with an unexpected success and praise by the general public, with two million copies sold in English only, by the end of the 1920s. But it also faced a strong and sometimes harsh criticism by academic historians and other experts. The book was also attacked, at times quite violently and vulgarly, by people who objected to it from an ideological point of view. It was a deeply humanist, socially progressive, atheistic, anti-militaristic and antiimperialist work. Traditionalist, conservatives, religious dogmatists, far right extremists, but also many far left activist – all took serious objections to it. The causes of its success among the general public are comparatively easy to establish. Wells’ famed literary skills were fully utilized in the writing of The Outline of History, creating an attractive, suggestive and above all comprehensible narrative, that for many a reader was a real page-turner. For the first time, a multitude of readers were engaged with a history book they could understand with ease. Also, for quite a few of them, this was the first encounter with a history that was not narrow, nationalistic and propagandistic in its scope. Though sometimes criticized today that it is not a world history at all, because much of its focus lies on Europe, Mediterranean and Asia, this wasn’t the impression at the time. Compared to the books that came before it, The Outline of History was a big step towards the proper world history; most of the previous attempts were merely histories of Europe, often only of Western Europe, that were masqueraded as world histories. It inspired many similar attempts in the following decades. However, a careful analysis will reveal that many academic critics had a point. Wells approached his monumental work not quite aware of its size and implications, believing that one year worth of reading and studying is quite enough to accomplish it. During writing, he relied heavily on the secondary works of reference, as well as many obsolete or simply inadequate books. Although author gathered a team of advisers, that was actively involved in all phases of the work, their competence was not, of course, all-encompassing, and besides, he often ignored the advices they gave him. The result was a very attractive, readable history, but also a highly unreliable one, littered with hundreds and hundreds of factual errors (many of which persist even in the later editions), unsupported claims and questionable conclusions. The general structure of his work is problematic as well, in a way its basic orientation is wrong. Instead of building up a mass of evidence and creating a conclusion based on it, Wells began from the conclusion and looked for evidence to support it. He believed that whole of history is a fixed line of development leading up to a bright utopian (scientific and socialist) united world state. He was convinced that most of the people, past and present, share his ideal of unity of mankind to some degree, and strive, at least instinctively to achieve it. Furthermore, this gave parts of Wells’ history a distinctive moralizing tone: if history is a singular process, with a clearly defined goal, then one could measure and indeed judge the cultures of the past according to a degree they furthered this goal. Wells found that many of them failed miserably at this (imaginary) task, and he judged them accordingly. The past, in his view, was fully subjected to a utopian vision of the future.