Periods of History

On page 343, while Hegel is discussing the history of the German World, he says, “The three periods of this world will have to be treated accordingly.” I am not completely sure what he means by “will have to be treaded accordingly;” it is the first part of the sentence, “the three periods of this world,” that stuck out to me. I am in a class on Indian art history, and we were recently read an article regarding the writing of India’s history (which, incidentally, also reminded me of Ranke at the time). The article deals with the idea that India’s history was primarily written down by the British, and discusses how that affected the portrayal of India’s history. In the west, history is generally categorized into three periods: ancient, medieval, and modern. By the British, Indian history was also divided into three periods: Hindu, Muslim, and British. But the thing is, these periods don’t really work. (Hindus, for example, didn’t stop existing in India when the Mughals (an Islamic empire) took power.) But yet, there is this desire to fit everything into three neat periods. Back to Hegel: maybe now you can understand why this qupte jumped out at me. He also goes through and separates the history of the German World into three periods. (The first beginning with the appearance of the German Nations in the Roman Empire, the second with Charlemagne, and the third with Charles V.) Why three periods? What is so special about that number, and why does the world need to be fit into that specific periodization?
When reading the article about India, I had a hard time figuring out why people weren’t accepting other – uniquely Indian – proposed periodizations, but reading Hegel has helped me understand that a little better. This may seem obvious, but I think that it must stem from the fact that Western civilization is traditionally separated into three periods. It makes more sense for Hegel to follow that model (since Germany is in the West) than it did for the British when writing about India, but I think that essentially, it comes down to the fact that it is much easier follow an existing framework than it is to invent your own. Western readers understand the world in three periods, so it makes sense to frame all other knowledge around that. But while it may be easier for Western readers to understand, easier doesn’t necessarily mean better, especially if it warps the truth about a region’s history (such as what happened with India).