06-16-2009, 06:16 AM
Now wait a minute, before we throw the baby out with the bath water, let us consider the opposite here: Who are the "real" or "serious" historians?
Edward Gibbon?
As Gibbon himself wrote in his book, Memories of My Life, "A gentleman possessed of leisure and independence, of books and talents, may be encouraged to write by the distant prospect of honor and reward: but wretched is the author, and wretched will be the work, where daily diligence is stimulated by daily hunger."
By this standard few of us would be considered "gentlemen of leisure" with the time and money to write "serious" history worthy of the ink.
Must we not also consider the original source as well as the interpreter of those sources?
In dealing with ancient history, even a period as well documented (relatively speaking) as the Fall of the Republic is, we are in fact dealing with very limited sources. Cicero was a voracious writer, a gold mine of material, but can his letters and essays, speeches and books be taken purely at face value?
Perhaps this is where Jona's plea for Logic comes in for surely we must use our judgement when examining these sources. However, in applying that judgement do we not then invite the very criticism leveled at "revisionist history" in the Septic Magazine article quoted by Paullus?
Now, I have said many times before that Jona's command of the source material is truly amazing, and I think his analysis of Holland's book Persian Fire quite telling. I do not share his sentiment when it comes to Holland's other book, Rubicon, but I would welcome Jona's detailed review of that book as well. No doubt I would learn as much from the review as I did from the book itself.
So I am not in disagreement with Jona's central idea, and I think the term he is looking for is indeed "Popular History" for that does have a pejorative air to it.
Then again, such a term takes in a lot of territory.
Is not Winston Churchill's history of World War Two a "popular history" in that he wrote it for the "common" people? Of course one might also consider it suspect in that Churchill was not an objective observer and chronicler of the events.
Which brings me to the article from Septic Magazine, which I find interesting, but not entirely convincing. Again, the main thrust of the article, that history should be treated as a science, seems quite reasonable and a position I would support. I hold a BA cum laude in History and yet I doubt very much that my training as a historian was in anyway as rigorous as that which Jona underwent, so indeed I would support an increase in the standards for what we call the discipline of history.
However...
I do not think the Holocaust is the best example. That event is still within living memory. Many of us no doubt have paid visits to the Camps and have met survivors who still bear the numbers tattooed on their arms. But in a thousand years, in 3045, what will history say then and who will the sources be?
David Irving?
Henry Ford?
Joseph Kennedy?
Steven Spielberg?
Imagine if Cicero's writings had not survived, or if Caesar's commentaries had been destroyed... How differently we might view the fall of the Republic.
Furthermore, history is constantly being revised.
We just observed the 65th anniversary of the D-Day Landings and look at how many books have been and continue to be written about that one campaign. Indeed, Anthony Beevor has yet another book due out this year to add to those by Keegan, Hastings, Ryan et.al.
What more can Beevor have to say about D-Day?
What more can Goldsworthy have to say about Caesar or the Fall of the Roman Empire?
We read these books, and countless others, hopping against hope that we will gain a sharper picture and a deeper understanding of a time and a place that has captured our imaginations and our hearts.
Forgive me for going on at length. I agree with the general tenor of this thread but would caution against a headlong rush to man the barricades against the hordes of Revisionist Popular Historians. All Historians have an agenda -- the trick is leaning to recognize that and read beyond it.
:|
Narukami
Edward Gibbon?
As Gibbon himself wrote in his book, Memories of My Life, "A gentleman possessed of leisure and independence, of books and talents, may be encouraged to write by the distant prospect of honor and reward: but wretched is the author, and wretched will be the work, where daily diligence is stimulated by daily hunger."
By this standard few of us would be considered "gentlemen of leisure" with the time and money to write "serious" history worthy of the ink.
Must we not also consider the original source as well as the interpreter of those sources?
In dealing with ancient history, even a period as well documented (relatively speaking) as the Fall of the Republic is, we are in fact dealing with very limited sources. Cicero was a voracious writer, a gold mine of material, but can his letters and essays, speeches and books be taken purely at face value?
Perhaps this is where Jona's plea for Logic comes in for surely we must use our judgement when examining these sources. However, in applying that judgement do we not then invite the very criticism leveled at "revisionist history" in the Septic Magazine article quoted by Paullus?
Now, I have said many times before that Jona's command of the source material is truly amazing, and I think his analysis of Holland's book Persian Fire quite telling. I do not share his sentiment when it comes to Holland's other book, Rubicon, but I would welcome Jona's detailed review of that book as well. No doubt I would learn as much from the review as I did from the book itself.
So I am not in disagreement with Jona's central idea, and I think the term he is looking for is indeed "Popular History" for that does have a pejorative air to it.
Then again, such a term takes in a lot of territory.
Is not Winston Churchill's history of World War Two a "popular history" in that he wrote it for the "common" people? Of course one might also consider it suspect in that Churchill was not an objective observer and chronicler of the events.
Which brings me to the article from Septic Magazine, which I find interesting, but not entirely convincing. Again, the main thrust of the article, that history should be treated as a science, seems quite reasonable and a position I would support. I hold a BA cum laude in History and yet I doubt very much that my training as a historian was in anyway as rigorous as that which Jona underwent, so indeed I would support an increase in the standards for what we call the discipline of history.
However...
I do not think the Holocaust is the best example. That event is still within living memory. Many of us no doubt have paid visits to the Camps and have met survivors who still bear the numbers tattooed on their arms. But in a thousand years, in 3045, what will history say then and who will the sources be?
David Irving?
Henry Ford?
Joseph Kennedy?
Steven Spielberg?
Imagine if Cicero's writings had not survived, or if Caesar's commentaries had been destroyed... How differently we might view the fall of the Republic.
Furthermore, history is constantly being revised.
We just observed the 65th anniversary of the D-Day Landings and look at how many books have been and continue to be written about that one campaign. Indeed, Anthony Beevor has yet another book due out this year to add to those by Keegan, Hastings, Ryan et.al.
What more can Beevor have to say about D-Day?
What more can Goldsworthy have to say about Caesar or the Fall of the Roman Empire?
We read these books, and countless others, hopping against hope that we will gain a sharper picture and a deeper understanding of a time and a place that has captured our imaginations and our hearts.
Forgive me for going on at length. I agree with the general tenor of this thread but would caution against a headlong rush to man the barricades against the hordes of Revisionist Popular Historians. All Historians have an agenda -- the trick is leaning to recognize that and read beyond it.
:|
Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Burbank CA
