In R.F. Baum’s article, The Age of Endarkenment: Naturalism and Nihilism in Modern Thought, the subject of historicism is examined. The following quote from the article caught my interest:

In the 1920s in a paper entitled “What are historical facts?” Carl Becker of Cornell, soon to be president of the American Historical Association, pointed out that an agreed fact, like Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, generalized or symbolized the countless acts, words, and thoughts of an entire army crossing a river. Becker went on to say that Caesar’s river crossing, unlike countless others, had become a historical fact, that is, one used and cited by historians, expressing their own view of the political situation of the past. It was not the river crossing itself but the meaning or interpretation put upon it by historians that made it a historical fact.

I’m no historical expert, but Carl Becker’s statement sounds patently false. Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon can objectively be called a turning point in world history. My own personal viewpoint, thousands of years later, has nothing to do with several facts related to his crossing of the Rubicon.

Fact: Julius Caesar was a Roman general.
Fact: The Senate ordered Caesar to return to Rome
Fact: The Senate ordered Caesar to disband his army
Fact: The Rubicon River was the boundary between Italy and Cisalpine Gaul
Fact: Roman law forbade any general from crossing the Rubicon with an army
Fact: Caesar crossed the Rubicon with an army
Fact: Doing this disobeyed the edicts of the Senate and of Roman law
Fact: The Senate and others disapproved of this violation
Fact: Caesar continued into Rome, while many evacuated the city.

This chain of events shows a distinct shift in the normal, everyday operations of a now vanished society. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, it made other, later events possible, like the induction of Augustus Caesar.

Am I missing something to Becker’s statement here, or is he just wrong? What makes Caesar’s crossing of a river special were the direct consequences of the act. For example, I can cross a river in my hometown. Meanwhile, George Bush crosses the Shatt al-Arab from Iraq and into Iran with his soldiers. The two are similar in action, but not in consequence or meaning. One crossing is inconsequential. The other crossing is an act of war against a country, that will potentially affect millions of lives. The two are not equal.

Interesting post that raises many great questions. As a historian, it seems that what Becker is attempting to point out is that perhaps Caesar's army crossing, as well as other major historical events, have taken on a new meaning. While these events did occur, they have also become metaphors for actions reflected in the event itself. By that, I mean that once Caesar crossed the Rubicon, there was no turning back, no taking back what he had done. A historian (especially today) may describe Bush going into Iraq as his (Bush's) own crossing of the Rubicon.

You are correct in that what makes Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon significant is that it paved the way for the major historical events in Roman history to occur. However, consider Waterloo, a historical fact of Napoleon's defeat. It paved the way for the Pax Britannia, but has also served as a metaphor for other major defeats in history subsequent " . . . was his/her Waterloo." I would suggest that you pose this post to other historians and see what insights they may offer.

In What is History? by EH Carr, the identical example is used. It seems straightforward to me: Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon is no more a fact than my crossing the road this morning. Both are true events. But his crossing had huge significance whereas mine did not. However, historians had to recognize that significance. There have probably been many events which were not recorded at the time and about which we know nothing, but which had huge historical significance.

By the way, Carr was politically odious, but his book (above) is well worth reading.