Pseudo-history, and related issues

[D B Campbell]

Philosophy and logic are not common subjects when historians are educated; in Germany and the Netherlands, theory is part of the curriculum, but I am not sure that it is common in the Anglo-Saxon world.

One year of philosophy used to be mandatory in Scottish universities; its abandonment in the 1990s is just another symptom of the sad decline in Scottish education.

A partial explanation is that ancient historians used to be educated as classicists (e.g., Cartledge), so they can explain everything about the exact meaning of an with an optative in a clause, and have not sufficient time for the theoretical foundations of their discipline.

But classicists should have at least a passing familiarity with (ancient) philosophy.

I am always bemused by the fact that ancient history is a subject that many feel they can turn their hand to, without having had any instruction whatsoever. We don't seem to see the same thing happening in other disciplines. I can't suddenly decide to be a barrister, for example, and pitch up at the law courts one morning. Usually, we have to demonstrate our expertise in some way -- I guess the fact that one of your examples is a Cambridge professor may undermine my argument a little, Jona! -- but publishers seem to fall over themselves to publish anything and everything. I recently had the misfortune to review a book entitled Cartimandua, and I have absolutely no idea how it ever got across an editor's desk -- if it had been submitted as an undergraduate dissertation, it would have been shredded.

Perhaps the main offenders are writers who have not studied their source material diligently, and/or are unaware of the limitations of their source material, and/or are willfully ignorant of the range of relevant source material. The words "sloppy" and "ignorant" inevitably spring to mind, but you can't use these in your book, Jona!

[Jona Lendering]

The words "sloppy" and "ignorant" inevitably spring to mind, but you can't use these in your book, Jona!

Yep, one must remain polite - if only for political reasons. If you say the truth too bluntly, people will feel shocked and can not believe you.

[M. Demetrius]

If you say the truth too bluntly, people will feel shocked and can not believe you

Yep. Too true.

PC
"Sir (or madam, or other--whatever particular gender identity you choose to believe yourself), to an outside observer, not an eavesdropper, you understand, not that there is or is not anything wrong with having ears and eyes, and receiving (or not receiving auditory or visual input, according to one's own personal choice, including the choice not to believe in ears and/or eyes) the nebulous, semi-transparent haze (which of course is harmful to the environment, and should be viewed in that context) which seems to be billowing from your second floor windows, or perhaps the third floor in the event your home has a cellar, and you choose to call that the first floor, or perhaps if you wish to count from the top down, in which the haze would be emanating from your first floor window could lead that outside observer to conclude that perhaps there is a thermal event occurring as we speak that may or may not lead you to the choice to exit your home before some eventuality that many would consider to be a negative incident (or perhaps not so negative, as simply very different from present circumstances you may consider to be normative, not that there is anything right or wrong with one or the other, of course) from which you could perhaps prefer to escape, not that I'm trying to lead you to some conclusion, indicating that there is overall a "right" or "wrong" choice in this particular situation, though one is perfectly free to any other decision regarding what many may or may not consider a threat to personal safety, particularly if you have created the alleged thermal event for some reasons of your own choosing, with or without a full understanding of those permanent conditions (in the usual definition of permanence, knowing, of course, that all things are actually transient to varying degrees, depending on one's cosmic vantage point and perspective) that may result from that choice."

blunt
"Hey, your house is on fire! Get out while you still can!"

[Jona Lendering]

PC
"Sir (or madam, or other--whatever particular gender identity you choose to believe yourself), to an outside observer ... depending on one's cosmic vantage point and perspective) that may result from that choice."

:lol: There ought to be a golden Risus Homericus award for not being a clown and yet always making me smile.

[M. Demetrius]

One is honored to serve, sir.

[SigniferOne]

In his book on Themopylae, he maintains that the Persian Wars were decisive for the birth of western civilization. If we assume, for argument's sake, that there is indeed a connection between Greek and our own civilization (e.g., some kind of cultural paradigm was created in Greece that is still in existence), we must also prove that this would not have come into being if the Persian Wars had resulted in a Persian victory. The arguments for this thesis were for the first time put forward in the nineteenth century (Persian victory = eastern obscurantism, mysticism instead of rationalism, no democracy, no science).

Yes what's wrong with that view?

And by the way, the arguments for Western exceptionalism were not first put forward in the 19th century, but have been present for centuries prior, starting at least with the 17th century Jesuits who travelled around the world teaching other countries Western science, or perhaps the battle of Lepanto, if not even earlier than that. The tracing of modern West from antiquity starts with Petrarch in the 1370s, and makes its entry to full historical usage in 1458 when Flavio Biondo records the schema of antiquity, the dark middle ages, and the modern world that he says was only in his time emerging. 19th century was in fact the last century where Western exceptionalism was stated, not the first.

Note, for instance, that during the Persian age, the scientific method (empircal cycle etc) was invented in Babylonia, that Mardonius allowed democracy to continue in Asia, et cetera. Counterfactual explanations are almost never correct.

But note that this itself is revisionist history and is not part of the normal historical consensus. You may have reasons for believing what you do, but it is very much open to discussion (though not in this thread). The underlying point is that these topics are just a difference of opinion between historians. Why accuse them of dishonesty, just from being in disagreement with you?

Everyone feels frustrated when their ideas are controverted and disregarded (who doesn't?). That doesn't mean all other people are dishonest and there is some deep philosophical crisis that is eating at the healthy apple of history. I agree with your review of the Iranian book though, but that to me is not even something worth refuting. He is clearly in the tank with the Iranian regime to paint Iranian history in nationalistic colors. Cartledge and Holland however are a different story. They are done a disservice by being lumped with Farrokh.

[Jona Lendering]

Yes what's wrong with that view?

That it is counterfactual, as Max Weber proved in the early twentieth century.

by the way, the arguments for Western exceptionalism were not first put forward in the 19th century, but have been present for centuries prior

Even earlier than you think: the first references to "Europenses" as an independent unity with its own tradition is eighth-century (in the "Mozarabic Chronicle of 754"). What I was aiming at was the philosophical underpinning of this idea by people like J.S. Mill. Yet, you are right that I could have gone back to an earlier period.

Cartledge and Holland however are a different story. They are done a disservice by being lumped with Farrokh.

Holland just had an unhappy hand in chosing Cartledge as his adviser, true.

Cartledge himself, however, is a different matter. He has a job at a university and must therefore know the article by Weber. If he doesn't, this raises serious questions: how is it possible that someone lacking basic qualifications can obtain a job? (Of course this is normal in politics, banks, and business enterprises. :wink: ) The alternative, which I believe is more plausible, is that Cartledge does know that his argument has been refuted a century ago, but prefers to ignore it. But maybe I am overestimating his knowledge. What I am certain about is that he was wrong to write a laudatory review of Holland's book, a book that he has contributed to. He must have known that this was a conflict of interests.

[SigniferOne]

Cartledge himself, however, is a different matter. He has a job at a university and must therefore know the article by Weber. If he doesn't, this raises serious questions: how is it possible that someone lacking basic qualifications can obtain a job?

First, could you reference the work by Weber that deals with this? (I know that's stretching outside our topic.)

But more pertinently, why couldn't he have merely disagreed with the thesis you (and perhaps Weber) are putting forth? Why does making a different statement mean that he is lacking basic qualifications for being a historian, immediately becoming an author of pseudo-history? I think we are pushing the boundaries of our definitions here. Farrokh is clearly a disreputable historian -- from his motives as much as from the actual end result of his work. Another pseudo-historian, Western this time? Gavin Menzies. There is no reason he has not been mentioned so far yet, a clearly dishonest and disreputable person there. By what stretch of the imagination do we equate Cartledge to Gavin Menzies? We need to be careful not to categorize as pseudo-history an author with whom we merely disagree.

[Jona Lendering]

First, could you reference the work by Weber that deals with this?

Max Weber, "Kritische Studien auf dem Gebiet der kulturwissenschaftlichen Logik", in: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (1973), esp. blz.286-287.

But more pertinently, why couldn't he have merely disagreed with the thesis you (and perhaps Weber) are putting forth?

Because Weber's essay is not just an essay on the Persian Wars with arguments based on sources which you can move this way or that way - it is the very foundation of the critical study of historiography. The difference between a real historian and a classicist writing about history, is that the first one understands what a cause is, can define a fact, and is able to explain why he uses the hermeneutical, the comparative, or the positivistic explanatory models. It was Weber who founded this discipline and offered a quality standard that was missing in the nineteenth century. He is for the critical study of historiography what Winckelmann is for art history, Gibbon for Late Roman studies, and Schliemann for archaeology.

Here in the Netherlands, any first-year student knows what Weber has written (usually through an excerpt in his handbook on theory by either Lorenz or Ankersmit). It may be that in other countries, this is not treated in the first year, or perhaps not treated at all, but it is simply impossible that a professor in Cambridge is fully unaware of the logical foundations of his discipline.

I read between the lines that you're surprised that I am so angry at Cartledge. You are right - I should be a bit more quiet. I am sorry; my anger did indeed get the better of me.

Still, he should never have reviewed Holland's book and he should have taken Weber in account. If only he had offered counter-arguments, things would have been better; then we would be talking about a scholar discussing truth. Now we see a Cambridge professor ignoring valid criticism. That's below the standard of the university of scholars like A.H.M. Jones, M.I. Finley, and Keith Hopkins.

[SigniferOne]

It was Weber who founded this discipline and offered a quality standard that was missing in the nineteenth century. He is for the critical study of historiography what Winckelmann is for art history, Gibbon for Late Roman studies, and Schliemann for archaeology.

Then that is simply a cultural divide here. I am in America, it is not a cultural backwater, and the scholarly activity here is second to none. Yet here Weber is barely even known, and if he is known it's for his other work, the rather monumental essay on Protestantism and Capitalism. Weber here is titled as the founder of sociology; not of history. I am very surprised to see that he is ranked as the founder of scientific history, when Leopold Ranke is much more commonly invoked with reference to that title. I wonder if any non-Dutch (especially British) scholars here share my utter surprise.

Here in the Netherlands, any first-year student knows what Weber has written (usually through an excerpt in his handbook on theory by either Lorenz or Ankersmit). It may be that in other countries, this is not treated in the first year, or perhaps not treated at all, but it is simply impossible that a professor in Cambridge is fully unaware of the logical foundations of his discipline.

But again, who said that Weber provided the logical foundations for historical discipline? It may be a Dutch view but I have never heard it so presented, until you said it a day ago. If it is such a rare or localized view, how rational is it to expect everyone else to know it, and to be judged as a pseudo-historian if they either a) don't know it or, b) disagree with it?

Still, he should never have reviewed Holland's book and he should have taken Weber in account. If only he had offered counter-arguments, things would have been better; then we would be talking about a scholar discussing truth. Now we see a Cambridge professor ignoring valid criticism. That's below the standard of the university of scholars like A.H.M. Jones, M.I. Finley, and Keith Hopkins.

It's funny that Finley be invoked here, when he was consistently debunked in all of his historical theses, whereas Cartledge has not made outlandish claims, nor was debunked for them as a result. I'm not trying to be a partisan here, and only say that if we start equating Cartledge with the likes of Menzies, that is not rational, and anger has indeed gotten the best of us.

[Jona Lendering]

anger has indeed gotten the best of us.

Yes, that is true. Sorry for my part.

[Sean Manning]

Of course, study of the wrong kind of theory isn't any garantee that people can think logically. And there is a lot of nonsense passing for theory in the humanities and social sciences. But of course “every source provides a particular perspective and must be understood in context” is a theory too, and we all know amateur historians who get into trouble because they haven't absorbed that.

This does seem to be a cultural thing: I don't think any 1st year History or Greek and Roman Studies course at my university would include a handbook on theory, although the practical type of theory I mentioned would be discussed at some point. Or an issue like whether the term "feudalism" is useful for medieval history might be discussed. More advanced courses tend to have a higher proportion of theory and are more likely to use jargon; for example, the professor of a military history seminar I took recently kept hammering home at what technological determinism is and why its a bad explanation for most events in military history. And both departments have a special seminar for undergraduate who plan to continue to graduate school which emphasizes theory and historiography among other things. My only detailed knowledge of Max Webber is your posts here. Again, I can't say whether this is good or bad, just different from what you seem to be used to. When I've gone through grad school, and studied theory and historiography there, I'm sure I'll have an opinion on how useful formal study of theory has been.

[D B Campbell]

Here in the Netherlands, any first-year student knows what Weber has written (usually through an excerpt in his handbook on theory by either Lorenz or Ankersmit). It may be that in other countries, this is not treated in the first year, or perhaps not treated at all, but it is simply impossible that a professor in Cambridge is fully unaware of the logical foundations of his discipline.

I was trained as an archaeologist, which lets me off the hook! //www.amazon.co.uk/What-History-E-H-Carr/dp/B0007EGPIU/:1kw9ie4m]What is History?[/url], 1961+) and Sir Geoffrey Elton (The Practice of History, 1967+). Max Weber seems to be known in the English-speaking world more for his sociology ... and I freely admit that I normally run a mile rather than tangle with sociologists and their impenetrable jargon (post-processualism, anyone?).

My jargon-immersed prehistorian colleagues used to smile condescendingly when I admitted the rather basic Rankean foundations of my own work: Wie es eigentlich gewesen ("how it essentially was"). (I was amused to read that it was von Ranke's horror at the extraordinary historical liberties taken by Sir Walter Scott that prompted him to apply his intellect to history!) I also have a lot of time for R.G. Collingwood (The Idea of History, 1946), who said (something like) "History is the re-enactment in the historian's mind of the thought whose history he is studying".

[Jona Lendering]

their impenetrable jargon (post-processualism, anyone?)

That's Ian Hodder c.s., not a sociologist. :wink:

R.G. Collingwood (The Idea of History, 1946)

The classical hermeneutical approach.

[M. Demetrius]

Hermeneutics. A very interesting word.

In the 4th Century BC, there was a traveling scholar from Germania, Hermann, who went from place to place listening to speeches, and analyzing how the speakers had delivered their message. He began to develop a methodology for convincing people through words, and became so good at it, that it became a new technology of sorts. He published his works and spread the scrolls around wherever he went, even opening some schools of oratory. Three points and a conclusion was the general structure.

Soon, orators began to use his formula whenever they delivered a persuasive argument in public. Other scholars, once they realized the technique the speaker was using would smile, nod their heads and say "Hermann New Techs again." And so the word was born. Amazing, ain't it? How's that for extemporaneous pseudo?