Why can\'t history be great literature?

[Epictetus]

I have always been struck by this quote from historian J.B. Bury: “Gibbon is one of those few writers who hold as high a place in the history of literature as in the roll of great historians.”

Indeed, when “great” literature is discussed, rarely if ever does the name of a historian come up. Personally, I would agree. If I were to list a hundred people whom I think were writers of genius, Gibbon would probably be the only historian to make the list.

That’s not to say I don’t love history, because I do. I have some historians that I love to read, but for some reason their writing never comes across as a great piece of work. They are more science than art, perhaps.

For some interesting background, here is Bury’s introduction to the Decline and Fall where he discusses this issue. Also, here is a piece by none other than Theodore Roosevelt about history as literature.

So I’m curious. Why can’t history be great literature? Is Gibbon simply unique? Does anyone else have any historians that you would rank with Hemingway or Kafka?

[D B Campbell]

Churchill?

[Epictetus]

Great point; I had forgotten about him. I think I read his history of the second world war back in college. Yes, I would say he wrote great literature.

[Sean Manning]

Don't forget Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, and Livy (not that Livy's to my taste, but people devoured his work for 1500 years). But for the past century or so, most history has been written by professionals trained to seek out the truth, not in rhetoric. And the academic style encourages plain, methodical writing (often painfully plain in the natural sciences). I think these two factors make brilliantly-styled history rare today.