On "Getting" Bill Bennett

Plenty has been said about Bill Bennett's out-of-context and supposedly "racist" statement, but I find the analysis offered by Jeff Goldstein to be particularly insightful. As he surmises:

None of this, given our partisan culture, is unexpected. But what gives these calculated and malicious rhetorical and performative ploys their political force is twofold: first, the willingness (in this case on the part of Democrats and the press, and now, the White House) to consider Bennett’s remarks outside of their argumentative context; and second, the idea that Bennett’s words are still his beyond his intent to use them in a certain way—which simply echoes the old Judith Butler axiom that “actions continue to act after the intentional subject has announced its completion,” which, while true, is nevertheless incidental, and becomes dangerous as an assertion when interpretation is released from the ground of appealing back to the speaker’s intent. That is, what is at stake here is the role the subject plays in the “meaning” of the act vs. the role played by contingency in giving that act its (subsequent) meaning(s)—or, to put it more specifically, what William Bennett meant vs. what his words can be made to look like they might mean by those in whose interests it is to damage him. In short, they are taking ownership of his words, resignifying them, then using that resignification to taint Bennett with the charge of racism.

I may be wrong, but doesn't this resignification stem from post-modernism? Or is that an oversimplification? If whatever we say can be turned and reapplied in ways we, the original speaker, never intended, what are the consequences if such a practice becomes widespread? Heck, what if we historians with a political "taint" unconsciously do this all the time. In fact, we may....?

Pataki: No International Freedom Center at Ground Zero

After much debate, New York Governor George Pataki, who may have been following Senator Hillary Clinton's lead, finally nixed the placement of the International Freedom Center on the same grounds as the 9/11 Memorial. (Story). I didn't think it was a good idea to begin with. (Also see here). As I said then, I see the historical value of such an institution as it will inevitably foster some interesting (and heated) debate, but I thought that it was unwise to include such a potentially controversial entity within the same, solemn space as the 9/11 memorial. I'm glad it won't be. Perhaps it can be built someday, and if it is, I hope it follows the mission and purpose some of it's defenders outlined when they came under fire and not the ideas and philosophy of some of it's proponents, who seem to think "Freedom" is good, so long as America isn't involved. Of course there are times when our nation has fallen down, and they should be presented and discussed, but the trips and stumbles should not be magnified at the expense of the large steps the U.S. has taken to help secure freedom throughout the world. The presumption should be that the U.S. is and has been, generally and (especially) relatively speaking, a force for effecting freedom in the world, regardless of whether the true motivations, realpolitik, pragmatism, etc. of U.S. policy were explicitly designed to accomplish such goals or not.

History: "Philosophy teaching by Experience."

I'd heard the line quoted in this post's title before, but Thomas Carlyle explains it better:

... History, as it lies at the root of all science, is ... the first distinct product of man’s spiritual nature; his earliest expression of what can be called Thought. It is a looking both before and after; as, indeed, the coming Time already waits, unseen, yet definitely shaped, predetermined, and inevitable, in the Time come; and only by the combination of both is the meaning of either completed. The Sibylline Books, though old, are not the oldest. Some nations have prophecy, some have not; but of all mankind, there is no tribe so rude that it has not attempted History, though several have not arithmetic enough to count Five. History has been written with quipo-threads, with feather-pictures, with wampum-belts; still oftener with earth-mounts and monumental stone-heaps, whether as pyramid or cairn; for the Celt and the Copt, the Red man as well as the White, lives between two eternities, and warring against Oblivion, he would fain unite himself in clear conscious relation, as in dim unconscious relation he is already united, with the whole Future and the whole Past.

A talent for History may be said to be born with us, as our chief inheritance. In a certain sense all men are historians. Is not every memory written quite full with Annals, wherein joy and mourning, conquest and loss manifoldly alternate; and, with or without philosophy, the whole fortunes of one little inward Kingdom, and all its politics, foreign and domestic, stand ineffaceably recorded? Our very speech is curiously historical. Most men, you may observe, speak only to narrate; not in imparting what they have thought, which indeed were often a very small matter, but in exhibiting what they have undergone or seen, which is a quite unlimited one, do talkers dilate. Cut us off from Narrative, how would the stream of conversation, even among the wisest, languish into detached handfuls, and among the foolish utterly evaporate! Thus, as we do nothing but enact History, we say little but recite it: nay, rather, in that widest sense, our whole spiritual life is built thereon. For, strictly considered, what is all Knowledge too but recorded Experience, and a product of History; of which, therefore, Reasoning and Belief, no less than Action and Passion, are essential materials?

Under a limited, and the only practicable shape, History proper, that part of History which treats of remarkable action, has, in all modern as well as ancient times, ranked among the highest arts, and perhaps never stood higher than in these times of ours. For whereas, of old, the charm of History lay chiefly in gratifying our common appetite for the wonderful, for the unknown; and her office was but as that of a Minstrel and Story-teller, she has now further become a Schoolmistress, and professes to instruct in gratifying. Whether with the stateliness of that venerable character, she may not have taken up something of its austerity and frigidity; whether in the logical terseness of a Hume or Robertson, the graceful ease and gay pictorial heartiness of a Herodotus or Froissart may not be wanting, is not the question for us here. Enough that all learners, all inquiring minds of every order, are gathered round her footstool, and reverently pondering her lessons, as the true basis of Wisdom. Poetry, Divinity, Politics, Physics, have each their adherents and adversaries; each little guilt supporting a defensive and offensive war for its own special domain; while the domain of History is as a Free Emporium, where all these belligerents peaceably meet and furnish themselves; and Sentimentalist and Utilitarian, Sceptic and Theologian, with one voice advise us: Examine History, for it is “Philosophy teaching by Experience.”

Every once in a while, we historians need this reaffirmations. [via Political Theory Daily Review]

The Geographical Turn -- Remembering the Annales

Nathanael at Rhine River has an excellent series on the Annales and the role of Geography in doing history.

Nick Hartigan: Pigskin-Hauling Historian-in-Training

Nick Hartigan of Brown University is the model of what a student-athlete should be. Hartigan was profiled today in a piece by Providence Journal Sport's columnist Jim Donaldson.

You certainly should be impressed by the numbers Nick Hartigan has racked up on the football field for Brown University.

His 1,498 rushing yards as a sophomore in 2003 are a school record. He led the nation that year with an average of 149.8 rushing yards per game. He set another school record last season by rushing for 17 touchdowns. He carried the ball 323 times in 2004, also a Brown record, and second only to Ed Marinaro of Cornell in Ivy League history, while gaining 1,263 yards.

But the number that is most impressive, the one that truly is reason to sit up, take notice and shake your head in amazement and admiration is Hartigan's 3.91 grade-point average while double-majoring in political science and history.

Not only is he a candidate for the Walter Payton Award -- the equivalent of the Heisman Trophy for Division I-AA players -- but he also is a candidate for a Rhodes Scholarship.

"I can honestly say he's one of the most impressive people I've ever met."

That's not Hartigan's football coach, Phil Estes, speaking. It's one of his political science professors, Jennifer Lawless.

In addition to advising Hartigan on his senior thesis, which he describes as being about "the alliance between Catholics and evangelical Christians in the political arena from the (John) Kennedy era to the present," and will run between 60 and 100 pages in length, Lawless also is a candidate in the state Democratic primary for the congressional seat held by Rep. James Langevin.

"Every assignment he's ever turned in has been in excellent," Lawless said. "Every deadline he's had, he has met with high quality work and enthusiasm.

"He's so well-rounded and incredibly humble. He's the kind of person you'd want in class, as a colleague, as a next-door neighbor -- the kind you'd want your daughter to marry."

Estes speaks of Hartigan in similarly glowing terms.

"He's such a good person. I'd love for my son to be just like Nick Hartigan," Estes said. "He has dedicated himself to being the best in the classroom, and the best on the field."

Hartigan truly is a student-athlete, although he unhesitatingly says that, when it's time for football, he's an athlete-student.

"I have time in my day, every day, when it's football time," he said. "When it's time to practice, or look at film, or go to meetings, there's nothing else going on for me except football. It's something I love.

"It's not just the sport that's fun, it's the guys. There's not one yard I gain that doesn't involve every guy on the offense. That creates a family atmosphere. Those relationships mean a lot to me.

"When I'm not doing those things, then it's time for me to get my schoolwork done. It's not easy. It's a lot of work. But I can do it through time-management and being able to focus. I didn't come to Brown just to play football. I came here to work hard academically and hopefully do well."

He has done exceptionally well, both academically and athletically -- in large part because he works just as hard in class as he does on the field.

"The same qualities, the same drive, that leads him to excellence on the football field," said Lawless, "is what leads him to work hard in the classroom."

"Because I have to be really intense on the football field," Hartigan said, "it's not that hard for me to be just as intense about what I'm studying. It becomes a habit."

If Hartigan doesn't go to Oxford next year on a Rhodes Scholarship -- he says he's "kind of embarrassed" that people know he's applying, because it's so difficult to win one, and the odds are against him -- he plans on going to law school.

Very impressive young man, but as to the last bit, maybe someone can get to him before we get (another) lawyer!

LibraryThing

Miriam Elizabeth Burstein pointed me in direction of Library Thing. Sheesh, just what I needed when I have a language exam and oral comps coming up in the next few months. But I'm too much of a book geek to ignore it. In fact, I had just started doing it myself using MS Access, now I won't have to. Caleb McDaniel comments that it will be more valuable when the data becomes exportable, but hopefully that's only a matter of time. I'll have to keep repeating the mantra: "Time management, time management, time management."

Historical Method: A New Emphasis

Peter Kirby has added to the discussion on Historical Method to which I have contributed in the past. Peter did me one better, though, and turned his wonderful post into a Wikipedia article! Additionally, he was kind enough to reference an earlier version of my Historical Method series that I had put up (and still remains) at my old Historical Sources On Line web site. Thanks to him for continuing to focus on this "forgotten" aspect of history.

Historical Critique or Disguised Polemic: Werther vs. Hanson

There has been a little attention (here, here and here, too) given to a piece written by the pseudonymous writer Werther who presents a case as to why Victor Davis Hanson, “court historian” of the Bush administration and other “neocons”, is the "worst historian since Parson Weems." By now, we are all used to attacks and defenses of the prolific Prof. Hanson, and while I didn’t intend to defend Hanson (he’s big enough to take care of himself if he so chooses), I did make a remark in another forum that some of Werther’s critique seemed to hold Hanson’s commentary to the standard reserved for scholarly works. I wrote that I thought that holding a piece of historical commentary to the standards of a scholarly piece--as exhibited by Werther's snide comment about "Mr. Hanson's . . . extended and unsourced whine”—was both gratuitous and disingenuous. As any consumer of commentary knows, rare is the op-ed that has footnotes. Yet, Werther’s criticism of Hanson’s piece as being “unsourced,” while gratuitous, was not really the core of Werther’s critique.

Unfortunately, my initial musings on the subject were made in passing (ahem, at work) and after only a quick reading of both Werther's and Hanson's pieces. I was subsequently enlightened by other historians as to the error of my ways. In essence, even if Hanson and other historians shouldn’t be expected to cite sources and footnote their commentary pieces, they should still be held to the accepted professional standard of historians. If Hanson or any other historian is going to, at the least, imply that his historical proficiency is cause for taking his commentary seriously, then his peers have a right and a duty to hold him to the standards of the profession. In the end, I have come to believe that it wasn’t that I had ever disagreed with such a thing, but more that I was focusing too much on Werther’s “sourcing” comment and not enough on the wider picture. As such, I re-read Werther’s piece and found that while he did seem to have a few valid points concerning Hanson’s history, some of his tactics were still unseemly and misleading.

While I did indeed have a problem with both the tone and the tactics used by the bravely anonymous Werther, I was more intrigued by his tendency to always infer from Hanson’s writing exactly what would put Hanson in the worst light and thus prove Werther’s larger point that, well, Hanson sucks as a historian. I was not the only one to observe such. J.F. Beck also noted "that Hanson isn't actually quoted" by Werther in his screed. Further, Beck noted that

Werther misrepresents. . . Hanson's work. The focus of Hanson's article is the downplaying by revisionist historians of the US role in World War II, not the general neglect of the US role.

All in all, much of Werther’s "historical critique" is really polemic (2nd comment down) disguised as literary/historical criticism. Throughout, Werther sets up many of his Hanson-skewering petards by hoisting upon us what he thinks Hanson must have been thinking as he was writing. Sometimes his inferences as to Hanson’s apparent thought process seem solid enough (as in his discussion of the taking of Iwo Jima), but at other times it seems as if, in his attempt to refute all of the Hanson’s historical interpretations—apparently Hanson has never gotten anything right to Werther's mind (I can make infererences too!)—he sometimes reaches too far.

For example, Hanson wrote:

Revisionism holds a strange attraction for the winners of World War II. American textbooks discuss World War II as if a Patton, Le May, or Nimitz did not exist, as if the war was essentially the Japanese internment and Hiroshima. That blinkered and politically correct focus explains why so many Americans under 30 are simply ignorant about the nature and course of World War II itself. Similarly, the British have monthly debates on the immorality of their bombing Hamburg and Dresden.

To which Werther comments:

We have before us at this moment our daughter's high school history textbook. Contra Hanson, there is no mention of the internment of Japanese-American civilians. Mr. Hanson's strange obsession with this subject invites speculation. Does his complaint about the alleged academic emphasis on this episode mean he would have opposed internment, or that it was merely a regrettable but necessary expedient best left unmentioned?

In addition to putting thoughts into Hanson’s head, Werther embarks on an attempt to skewer Hanson for philosophical or ideological inconsistency based on the assumed premise he, Werther, has already set up. All of this misses the point. Many of these episodes, like Hiroshima to which Hanson refers, have been the focus of much historical debate. Hanson is not commenting either on the value of the debate or even taking sides. Instead, he is pointing to episodes that could be reasonably interpreted as being instances of “bad behavior” on the part of the Allies. Hanson does this to bolster his assertion that “…the supposedly biased West discusses the contribution of others far more than our former enemies — or Russian and Chinese allies — credit the British or Americans” and that

most Americans never learned the standard narrative of War II — only what was wrong about it. Whereas it is salutary that an American 17-year-old knows something of the Japanese relocation ordered by liberals such as Earl Warren and FDR, or of the creation and the dropping of the atomic bomb by successive Democratic administrations, they might wish to examine what went on in Nanking, Baatan, Wake Island, Guadalcanal, Manila, or Manchuria…

Now, I agree with Werther and think there is something to his observation that Hanson seems to enjoy having it both ways regarding the bad notes sung by Democrats in wartime—but Werther’s attempt to catch Hanson in some sort of shell game is based on nothing more than assumptions that he, Werther, made in the first place. Also, as Beck noted, Werther never actually divulges the textbook to which he refers, thus rendering any source-checking of him impossible.

In another example contra Hanson, Werther states that:

On the other hand, the textbook [his daughter's unsourced one, again] contains a long extract from Reichsführer S.S. Heinrich Himmler's 4 October 1943 speech in Posen outlining the intent of the German government to undertake its Final Solution. Hanson, by contrast, suggests that the Liberal obsession with World War II revisionism and the alleged faults of the United States have resulted in the diminution of appreciation for the Axis' killing of innocent civilians. Really?

The number of books, articles, films, commemorations, and newly-opened museums having the holocaust as its subject is a veritable deluge. Somehow, this fact has escaped Mr. Hanson's curiosity.

But Hanson says no such thing. He doesn’t mention the Holocaust at all and explicitly refers to other mass killings and the tendency of the heirs to those governments who perpetrated said killings to give such incidences short shrift.

…the post-Soviet Russian government will not speak of the Stalin-Hitler non-aggression pact, the absorption of the Baltic states, the murder of millions of German citizens in April through June 1945 in Eastern Europe, and the mass execution of Polish officers. If we were to listen to the Chinese, World War II was about the gallant work of Mao’s partisans, who in fact used the war to gain power, and then went on to kill 50 million of their own citizens — about the same number lost in all of World War II. Japan likewise has never come to terms with the millions of Asian civilians its armies butchered or its systematic brutality waged against American POWs.

Werther's attempt to use the Holocaust as proof that atrocities by the Axis have not been ignored is slippery writing. Hanson is specifically comparing how people, historians and governments, of the old Allies are engaged in legitimate scholarly debate over events in which some feel their native nations may have fallen short—Japanese Internment, Hiroshima, Hamburg and Dresden bombings—while the same cannot be said of the governments of other WWII participants. I would note that here, Hanson has performed a bit of a slight-of-hand himself by refocusing his criticism of revisionists. Just because the governments or people of Germany or Russia have not focused on such things, doesn’t mean that historians haven’t. But Werther is so wrapped up in trying to explode Hanson’s history in it’s entirety that he misses a chance point out how Hanson himself is guilty of conflation. Perhaps conflators cannot identify fellow travelers?

Werther also comments that:

…one doubts, again contra Mr. Hanson, that there are many editorials in American newspapers decrying the bombing of Hamburg. The sole example we can find is a piece by the British (not American) author Niall Ferguson, which is more ambivalent than denunciatory.

This is another instance of Werther intentionally conflating things and twisting Hanson’s statement. While Hanson did write:

Indeed, most recent op-eds commemorating V-E day either blamed the United States for Hamburg or for the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, or for our supposed failure to credit the Russians for their sacrifices.

Later on, he elaborated more by writing, "the British have monthly debates on the immorality of their bombing Hamburg and Dresden." Nonetheless, Hanson may be guilty of not being clear enough as to which editorials he was referring, and it is easy to infer he reads only American ones (though not so much now in the digital age), but he does speak of the British debates over the Dresden bombings and there were in fact many editorials and articles (here, here, here, here, here, here, for example) that did appear on that subject.

Werther goes on to smugly write:

Having disposed of Mr. Hanson's assorted red herrings and straw men, the gravamen of his argument is bosh. Seven-eighths of all Wehrmacht combat-division-months (i.e., one division spending one month in combat) during World War II occurred on the Russian Front. It was the Red Army, as Churchill admitted, which ‘tore the guts out of the German Army.’ Without diminishing the courage of the assault troops of D-Day, the successful operation in Normandy would have been impossible in 1944 without Stalingrad and Kursk.

Can human imagination encompass the fact that there were 27 million Russian deaths in World War II? That fact was a demographic catastrophe from which Russia has never recovered. Yes, Stalin was a swine, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an act of treachery. But that does not entitle comfortable court historians to simulate outrage at how the American role in World War II has allegedly been belittled by (uncited) Marxist scribblers. Equally, the memoirs of German veterans of the Russian Front generally regarded a posting to the West as virtual salvation compared to the relentless meat grinder of the East. Their testimony has more credibility regarding the Russian contribution to World War II than the jeremiad of a shallow intellect.

Apparently Werther missed the beginning part of Hanson’s piece.

It is true that the Russians paid a horrendous price. Perhaps two out of every three soldiers of the Wehrmacht fell on the Eastern Front. We in the West must always remember that such a tragic sacrifice allowed Hitler to be defeated with far less American British, Canadian, and Australian dead.

To Hanson’s claim that

the Anglo-Americans…had fewer casualties than did the Russians because we fought more wisely, were better equipped, and were not surprised to the same degree by a treacherous former ally that we had supplied.

Werther responds

Yes, the Red Army was horribly profligate with human life. But was the United States so daintily economical with its own sons because of its wise policies and whiz-bang technology, as Mr. Hanson says? Read Belton Y. Cooper's Death Traps, or Paul Fussell's Wartime. Both books are tours de force about the wartime experience, and both defy summary in the space allotted here.

To Werther’s list I’d also add With the Old Breed by E.B. Sledge. These accounts are invaluable in understanding war. Nonetheless, despite the tragedy portrayed in those works, when viewed on the macro-level, to my knowledge there has not been much debate over who was more careless with the lives of their fighting men, the Soviet Union or the U.S. This protest by Werther could be seen to add credence to Hanson’s assertion about some historians who, ”If they cannot find perfection in history, they see no good at all.”

Werther does add a very helpful reference to the role of oil in WWII, even though he implies that because Hanson did not mention it he has fallen short, which is not really fair (criticizing for the piece one didn’t write and all that). As mentioned before, Werther also has a good point about Iwo Jima contrary to Hanson’s assertions.

Werther and those who enjoyed his piece are correct: both Proper sourcing and research techniques are inded the lifeblood of historians and it is the responsibility of those in the field to hold each other to such standards. But is it not also professionally accepted that historical critique should also include specific passages--quotations--to which one can offer their opinion on the faults being described? Sure, he provided a link to Hanson's piece, but that was a half-measure. He sourced pretty specifically when it supported his argument, only broadly did he refer to the target of his critique, and failed to do so at all in one instance (the textbook). Thus, as a polemic, Werther's piece has much to commmend. As historical critique, however, he is guilty of adhering to the professional standards of history only when it was to his ideological advantage. I have attempted to do the opposite. Heck, I may be way off on my own assumptions and interpretations, but at the very least I have provided the direct context from which you, the reader, can make your own judgement by reading both sides (yes, albeit only portions) within the whole of a single piece. Werther did no such thing.

History Carnival 15

Jeremy at ClioWeb is this month's host of the History Carnival. Looks like a good, eclectic mix.

Introduction to Historical Method: Certainty in History

[Nota Bene: What follows is the fifth and final part of a series entitled Introduction to Historical Method. The Series Index is located here.]

Certainty in History

The field of history seems to be undergoing a serious challenge to its validity, primarily from those who wonder whether knowledge is real or relative, objective or subjective. In In Pursuit of History, John Tosh frames the questions well. "How secure is our knowledge of the past? What authority should be attached to attempts of historical explanation? Can historians be objective?" In his attempt to elaborate, Tosh puts forth Geoffrey Rudolph Elton (author of his own book on Historical Method, The Practice of History) and Theodore Zeldin as representatives of two positions on the matter.

According to Tosh, Elton believed that humility in the face of evidence and training in technical research have enlarged the stock of historical knowledge. History is a cumulative, if sometimes contentious, discipline. Conversely, Tosh writes that Zeldin believes that all a historian can offer is a personal vision of the past and that everyone has a right to their own perspective. Tosh then explains that most academic historians agree with Elton, but every viewpoint between the two extremes has adherents. Finally, says Tosh, despite their seemingly confident bluster, many historians are confused about what they're doing. Maybe what follows will help.

What is the nature of historical belief?

There are a few characteristics that contribute to a theory of true historical belief.

Knowledge - There are many types of knowledge. First, there is general human knowledge, which is a combination of sense perception and mental processes, such as thought and analysis.

1) Knowledge Restricted - In its restricted sense, knowledge is only what one experiences directly or what one reasons, this does not include what one believes (and "belief" is not to be confused with religious Faith).

2) Knowledge Comprehensive - In this sense, knowledge includes all facts and truths apprehended by the human mind from experience, reasoning or belief (as previously defined). For an example of this last, we know that George Washington existed because we read it or were told so by many people who we trust. We didn't see him ourselves, but we know he existed because those who we deem "believable" told us he did.

3) Historical Knowledge based on Belief - As exhibited in the example of George Washington, this is a mental assent to a truth or fact on the word or authority of another. There are some very important factors to this. First, there must be two parties to process the information: the witness to the event and the believer (one communicates to the other). Second, the actual communication of knowledge--the testimony--must occur. Third, the testifier to the event must have authority. Authority in this sense means a complex of reasons or motives that makes the witness worthy of belief and induces others to accept his testimony as true. This all assumes that the witness is credible and that the fact that a testimony is being rendered has been established. So how can we be sure we can "believe"?

• Credibility of the Witnessis guaranteed by three elements. First, the actual possession by the witness of the knowledge to be communicated (Knowledge). Second, the intention and desire of the witness to communicate the knowledge as he possesses it (Veracity). Third, the witnesses' accuracy in communicating the knowledge (Accuracy).
• The Fact of Testimony means the determination whether a witness testified to a specific fact based on specific knowledge or interpolation. A couple examples: Caesar knew about the warriors of Gaul as he had first hand knowledge, but does this mean he knew the various aspects of the whole tribe? Another would be: Joe believes God spoke to him. Did God speak to him? See the difference?
  
• Belief is a necessity of life. An enormous proportion of knowledge is gained from belief, not first hand experience or reasoning. Even the most educated person must take thousands of things on the authority of others. Science is the servant of authority and the belief in that authority. Scientists regularly accept the findings of colleagues. They don't attempt to reinvent the wheel on their way to designing a new car. Mankind cannot constantlyre-prove things or nothing would get done! As St. Augustine said, "It can be shown that human society would fall apart if they took nothing for granted except what they experienced first hand."

How do we Believe?There is belief on the word of another, though this has become increasingly difficult in the current age of irony and cynicism. There is belief based on evidence produced, such as in a legal case or in footnotes. Belief occurs if trustworthiness is established. A critical attitude can establish trust and can acknowledge a hisortian as a worthy guide while at the same time reserving the right to question facts or assertions. Here, credentials are important in establishing trustworthiness, though some would argue just the opposite! Belief is doctrinal when assent is given to a truth or doctrine, such as in religion or even government or politics. Belief is historical when assent is given to a fact. The difference can be confusing to some. Belief can be human or divine whether the witness is human or God.

Until the Nineteenth Century, belief based on a divine witness, or Revelation, was paramount. The two are psychologically alike, but Supernatural belief (Faith) and Human Faith are different. Faith is supernatural, often called divine Grace. Human faith is a different sort. Martin D'Arcy, in his The Nature of Belief said we "start life on the shoulders of the past." William Montague (The Ways of Knowing; or the Methods of Philosophy) believed that one had to trust others in matters that one was unable to investigate and assume that the testimony of others was the same as one's own if there is no suspicion. Franklin Giddings (The Scientific Study of Human Society) stated that even if something was "scientific," it still must be proved true. Hereford B. George (Historical Evidence) said there is no such thing as historical knowledge in the strictist definition because it is based on the word of others. Finally, the words of St. Anselm may help to resolve the problem. "I believe in order that I may understand." In essence, in the study and practice of history, Evidence and Authority are identical.

What is the nature of historical certainty?

The purpose of methodology is to arrive at a way to determine or establish historical certainty, which is the firm assent of the mind to a historical datum without reasonable fear of it being false. There are three types of historical certainty.

1) Moral - Moral certainty is made up of the known uniformity or regularity of some moral law along with a converging series of probabilities and a certainty excluding all reasonable doubt. Examples would be: 1) the unconditional love a parent has for his child, 2) people are eager to know the truth, 3) people usually don't lie when no advantage is to be gained.

2) Physical - Physical certainty includes the known uniform operation of a physical law and that law's role in critical assessment of evidence. An example would be the time consumed on a journey.

3) Metaphysical - This means absolute principles with no exceptions. The principle of contradiction states that a thing can't exist and not exist at the same time. The principle of sufficient reason states that nothing exists without sufficient reason. Then there is causation where it is stated that something causes something else to guess. As can be seen, Metaphysical Certainty lays solididly in the domain of Philosophy.

For the purpose of History, Moral Certainty is enough--"Beyond all reasonable doubt." It probably happened and it probably happened this way. Yet, what about the role of "scientific" Probability in History? Can a historical entity be mathematically established? Take a theoritical historical "fact." Could its "truth" be established by some sort of mathematical function, such as dividing all of those who support a given fact by all those who don't by the total number of opinions to give a percentage of certainty? Obviously, this is rife with problems. There are degrees of moral certainty and of the veracity of witnesses. The flaw in such a mathematical construct is that all opinions or testimonies are given equal weight. Factors of probability have to be weighed, not counted. Outweigh does not mean the same thing as outnumber. In History, it is truly Quality that trumps Quantity (though they aren't mutually exclusive!).

What is the possibility of historical certainty

This is a major question for historians. Can we really be morally certain about any of the supposed facts of history? This question is too simple. There are really three questions that need to be asked, and all must be answered affirmatively to answer the first. First, is the human mind capable of knowing historical truth? Is such truth even knowable? Is such truth ever presented on grounds adequate to guarantee it's certainty?

The Mind's capacity for truth is a given. It is proven in any sound philosophical epistemology. To deny that the mind knows truth is to commit intellectual suicide. All attempts to erect some form of skepticism as a system of knowledge have failed. The mind is able to know scientific truth and it follows that it must be capable of knowing historical truth.

Idealists and Skeptics are the biggest critics of history as an objective entity. The Idealists, such as Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel and Bennedetto Croce, undermine the foundations of extra-mental reality and limit the human being. Allen Johnson, in his The Historian and Historical Evidence, said the "quest for truth is hopeless. It's limited by human intelligence." This is a Kantian view which takes the outside world to be a hypothetical structure.

Gilbert Garraghan, in his "Crocean View of History" from The Modern Schoolman, attacked Croce for applying philosophical idealism to history. History as record is relative because it comes from human beings. Just because we don't know all of the facts absolutely doesn't mean we don't know anything. History as record is actually part relative and part absolute. It is fixed in time and space (absolute) and relative. Skeptics too often exaggerate the difficulty of reaching truth. Modern critical investigation has actually caused many to question the validity of history as a whole, as seen by Henry Ford's famous " History is bunk" statement. The French methodologists Langlois and Seignobos stated that "general facts can be established and proved easier; contemporary history has more particular facts." This is true, but can be taken farther.

Experience and Testimonyare the grounds for historical certainty. To deny one's own experience would be to deny one's own senses, but it can be qualified: sometimes perception isn't reality, after all. Testimony must meet many requirements, such as consistency, corroboration, freedom from bias and veracity. Human testimony--oral or written, direct or indirect--under given conditions is a dependable source of certain knowledge. This is common sense! Edward A. Freeman, in his The Methods of History, said that historians can never attain certainty equal to science, but evidence we get every day in our lives is the same or similar to that which we use to write history.

In conclusion, there is such a thing as historical certainty. To quote John C. Almack, "The historian who selects all the sources, who subjects them to criticism after the approved tenets, who checks the testimony of one witness against the testimony of others, who records all the facts of his subject faithfully, who reports his facts accurately, and who makes reasonable generalization on the basis of his facts..." achieves historical certainty. Finally, as Richard J. Evans said in his In Defense of History, "History is neither an exemplar of realism, nor a victim to relativism. It occupies a middle ground in which scholarly procedures are upheld in order to keep the avenues of enquiry as close to the 'real' and as far removed from the 'relative' as possible."

Introduction to Historical Method: Practicing The Historical Method

[Nota Bene: What follows is Part 4 of a five-part series entitled Introduction to Historical Method. The Series Index is located here.]

Practicing The Historical Method

Introduction

As has been implied, history as a discipline often seems to be splintering and a knowledge of sound methodology is needed now more than ever to keep the working historian centered. Initially, the greatest challenges came from those who raised up the social sciences (ie: sociology, anthropology, psychology) as being the ultimate techniques for studying man and his past, present and future. Post-modernism, with its rejection of the ability of anyone to be objective, posed an even greater challenge. What follows is an attempt to lay the groundwork for using a solid methodology when researching, analyzing and writing history.

Meaning of Historical Method

First, a definition of Historical Method should be given. It is a systematic body of principles and rules designed to aid effectively in gathering the source materials of history, appraisng them critically, and presenting a synthesis (generally in written form) of the results achieved. More simply put, it is a system of right procedure for the attainment of historical truth. There are three major operations with method:

1) Heuristic - The search for material on which to work to acquire sources of information.

2) Criticism - The appraisement of the material or sources from the viewpoint of evidential value. This step is so important to the process of historical method that it is sometimes called "Historical Criticism."

3) Synthesis and Exposition - A formal statement of the findings of heuristic and criticism. It includes assembling a body of historical data and the presentation (usually in writing) in terms of objective truth and significance.

Uses of Historical Method

The phrase "tyranny of the printed page" is accurate. Whatever has arrived at the dignity of print has a tendency to be believed. As one historian put it, "[a] person without proper criteria for evaluating the information that reaches him from the outside risks a thousand deceptions and errors."

The written word must not be believed without critical analysis or real facts and falsifications will have equal weight in the eyes of the researcher. Proper training of a historian gives him a skill in assembling material, critically assessing it and setting out the results with effect. The self-taught historian is sometimes disparaged within the ranks of academia despite the inumerable valuable contributions made by these "amateurs."

Whether "classically trained" or self-taught, a practitioner of history must guard against falling into mistakes. Even the simplest document can offer many content and interpretation problems that those unaware or untrained may not recognize. In this, there is a danger that such problems, if left unrecognized, will remain unsolved or ignored altogether. It is easy to exaggerate the necessity of technical training, after all, critical method in history is often really just sound judgement and common sense. Yet, by themselves, sound judgement and common sense do have limitations even though they are the historian's most indispensible aid. In practical research they can take one a long way-- but not the whole way.

Judgement alone doesn't qualify a historian to decipher, to date, to localize, or to interpret simple ancient, medieval, or even modern documents. Technology has eased the burden of such concerns for the "layperson" somewhat, but it cannot yet be totally relied upon for accuracy and translation. It must be remembered that all science can be approached from a historical point of view.

History as Science

Is history a science? The disciplines concerned with man in his social relations are known as social sciences and History is very clearly considered to be part of the social sciences. The difference of opinion is probably more apparent than real. The discussion practically revolves around the meaning one chooses to attach to the term science. In practically all instances where the claim of history to be a science is denied, the denial is based on the assumption that the term science means an exact science. The crux of this discussion begins with a definition of science.

Most would agree that science is a systematized body of general truths concerning a definite subject matter and established by an efficient, effective method. This definition is sufficient, thought there really is no hard and fast, universally accepted definition of the term. Following is a breakdown of the four elements essential to the concept of science as has been defined:

• A body of systematized knowledge - Data or information that is ordered, organized and classified. Not just a heap of isolated facts or truths, but a complex of them knit together according to some principle of rational, logical order, such as time, space, topic or causation.
• An effective method - Science relies upon sound method more than anything so that conclusions derived from its practice can be deemed legitimate. The method must be correct and effective. History as record employs a recognized correct and effective technique, or method, from which the writer of history, at least scholarly history, cannot afford to depart. The use of a recognized method is a prime factor qualifying history to rank as a science.
• A definite subject matter - Material can't be vague or limitless. A science must work within some sharply defined field of human knowledge.
• Formulation of general truths - History deals primarily with particular happenings, with the unique, but a broader conception makes it pass at will beyond the unique to general and universal. There are two kinds of general truths: those restricted to time and place and those not. It is from broad, comprehensive truths that history derives its practical utility. History as record of human past has been understood to include the reporting of particular facts and interpretation and generalization based upon the facts.
  

It can be concluded that History is a science, though not an exact science, because History includes the above four elements. Thus, we can designate it as science, but only in a broad, qualified sense, as has been described.

What are the differences between history and the "exact" sciences?

1) The central truths of History are only morally uniform, not rigidly uniform as they are considered to be in the exact sciences.

2) The field of History has no universally accepted technical terminology, except for a few terms used in methodology. It has stock words, but none are rigidly fixed in meaning by usage or convention. Absence of technical terms is a weakness of history as science and results in vagueness and ambiguity in historical writing. The overuse of jargon only complicates matters.

3) History is not a science of direct observation (except perhaps oral history), which sets it apart from the exact sciences and their endless possibilities of immediate test and verification. The method of indirect observation, through the use of sources, is the only avenue open to the historian except in the few cases where he can draw on personal knowledge of facts.

4) History is a human story and has to deal with man, the ultimate self-determining agent. Free will, the incalcuble element, is a factor of which a historian must be constantly mindful. Additionally, and very basic to the problem, is the fact that there is no single definition to describe human! The exact sciences have no such incalcuble element.

5) Prediction in History is less reliable than in the exact sciences. From intimate understanding of an individual or group, one may forecast with great probability, and sometimes with moral certainty. Yet, it is impossible to predict with the same certainty what man, with free will, will do in the future as in the exact sciences and their subjects.

History enables man to predict events, though in a limited manner, and it is a science, though not an exact one. One thing that is for certain, History is not literature. If history is science, it cannot primarily be literature and, as such, fine art. Literary satisfaction is a nice byproduct of historical record making, but it is not a requirement (despite the wishes of some of us!) nor is it essential to the craft. Literary quality, however desirable in itself, belongs to the accidentals, not to the essentials of history.

Despite the preceding arguments, the question as to whether History is a science is academic. The resolution of the argument won't help the historian do his job more effectively. Such traits as honesty, impartiality, thoroughness, accuracy and documentation make a work scholarly, which is more consequential than it being characterized as scientific or otherwise.

Characteristics of a Historian

A competent historian should strive to have the following characteristics:

• A zeal for truth, which postulates sincerity and frankness in stating the facts, however much feelings may be hurt. Cicero said, "It is the first law of history that it dare say nothing that is false nor fear to utter anything that is true, in order that there may be no suspicion either of partiality or hostility in the writer." Additionally, British historian Lord Acton said, "Impartial history can have no friends."
• Honesty requires that important facts and circumstances, good or bad, be recorded. To omit can create the wrong impression and is virtually the same as falsification. The suppression of the truth is the suggestion of a falsehood. Additionally, be aware that sources often passively or actively did not hold themselves to this standard. When studying a source, remember that the failure to mention facts does not imply their non-existence. Never forget that the normal is taken for granted, both now and in the past. The argument from silence is invalid as a linchpin of historical "proof."
  
• Industry is also important as research takes a lot of time. A historian must learn to be economical in his work and must be prepared to research to near exhaustion. No research is wasted; a negative result is often as valuable, if less satisfying, as a positive. It must also be remembered that it is the substance of the fact that matters, not the accidentals. All circumstances attending an event in history do not have to be known before the record can be made "as it happened." It is helpful to think of law and the concept of reasonable doubt as a guide. If historians attempted to acquire all of the facts they would find themselves in indefinite or even infinite study and the field would not advance.
  
• Concentration is closely tied to industry. It is the mental alertness that makes a historian ready to recognize and account for every piece of causal information that can help master a subject. Aspects important to particular research automatically reveal themselves as such, at least if one is wide awake to the task. A finely honed ability to simply concentrate helps the researcher separate the wheat from the chaff.
• A critical sense and sound judgement are a historian's primary assets. Candor is always desirable, but it must not be restrained. If research reveals something about a subject that is negative and non-essential, omit it. Don't engage in superfluous, tell-all practices for their own sake. However, also beware of a lack of criticism, which is an injudicious attitude of mind.
• Both the mania for the extraordinary or narrow and exaggerated conservatism that looks upon criticism as the natural enemy of cherished traditions are both pitfalls. Hypercriticism is the abuse of a good thing. Overrating internal evidence, absorption with trifles, and an itch for novelties and an urge to upset established beliefs and traditions on no grounds of adequate evidence renders any valid criticism suspect. They are the historical version of crying wolf. In the end, the nature and true spirit of critical research is a benefit to the field. For example, the impression may be that modern critical investigation has cast doubt on many ancient and medieval sources of history and that they should be regarded skeptically. The fact is that a considerable proportion of the old historians have stood successfully against rigid scrutiny. This shows that criticism at its best is constructive and is a preservative of traditional viewpoints.
• Objectivity is really just the other side of the coin from a zeal for truth. It is a detached and neutral attitude in the historian that enables him to deal with material in light of the evidence alone. Von Ranke's exhortation to record a thing "as it really happened" is especially germane. However, there are some misconceptions about objectivity. It doesn't require the historian to be free from prejudice or to approach the task free of principles, theories or philosophies of life. It doesn't mean a historian must divorce himself from sympathy for his subject or refrain from forming judgements or drawing conclusions. Instead, the historian simply needs to be aware of his own biases and predispostions. Impartiality, rightly understood, on the part of the historian is a practical ideal. Events can be recorded "as they happened" as far as the evidence permits and historical truth can be achieved-- even though numberless details remain unkown. The question of whether history can be objective is kept alive by loose and unwarranted use of the term. The debate is speculative and has little practical bearing on the historian's actual task. The temptation to succumb to the ideal of objectivity must be fought with a pragmatic understanding of the term.

Hallmarks of Critical History

Critical history is also referred to scholarly or scientific history. Any of the three terms is acceptable. There are five aspects that establish a historical piece as meeting the standard of a scholarly work.

1) Method - The application of a correct technique to find and criticize data and the arrangement and presentation of the data according to an effective plan. As Lord Acton said, "Method makes the historian."

2) Candor- Critical history makes no attempt to pass for more than it is. It acknowledges all appropriations made by the author and doesn't conceal or gloss over matters which can't be so treated without a sacrifice of the truth. Dishonesty or failure to give due credit is plagiarism, which is the act by which one appropriates anothers work and passes it off as one's own.

3) Accuracy or Truth- Nothing diminishes interest in history more than the suspicion that facts are missing. A meticulous correctness of statement in all matters of fact is the ideal. Before going to press, a manuscript should be scrupulously checked for errors. History is innacurate when too many mistakes suggest the author is careless, earning him the ultimate negative tag in the field. Sloppy. However, a historian can't try to be perfect or he would never publish a thing!

4) Thoroughness - Use of all important sources bearing on a subject and treatment of all significant phases of the subject. There are always working standards at hand that enable one to judge whether a work reaches or falls below the demand of thoroughness.

5) Verifiability - A work of history must be fortified with indications of sources, which will enable the reader to check for accuracy and reliability.

As historians, we sometimes become enamored with pet projects or theories and forget those tools that have grounded historical scholarship in our modern era. A little reminder every now then--remembering "the basics"-- will help us refocus historical scholarship.

Up Next: Certainty In History

Introduction to Historical Method: The History of Historical Method

[Nota Bene: What follows is Part 3 of a five-part series entitled Introduction to Historical Method. The Series Index is located here.]

The History of Historical Method

The Ancient Greeks made no distinction between the writing of history and rhetoric. History found no place in their concept of an organized system of science. For his part, Aristotle ranked poetry above history as he believed poetry was closer to philosophy, which he held primary. He did believe that source material was necessary for scholarly treatment of history and that it couldn't just be made up. Some Greeks held history in higher regard. Herodotus is the acknowledged "Father of History" and was the creator of the narrative recital in his telling of the wars between Greece and Persia. Thucydides is considered by many to have been the first scientific historian and his Peloponnesian War is considered the first work of Didactic history as its aim was to instruct rather than entertain. Xenophon is generally classified as the lesser of the three great Greek historians. He was a good writer but weak in criticism. He was more of a reporter than a historian, though his Anabasis is a riveting first person account. The last of the ancient Greeks to mention is Polybius. He was a pragmatist and seeker of historical causes. He had views as to the function of the historian and the scope of his art, which is the most noteworthy of the historians of the ancient world.

The three great Roman historians were Sallust, Livy and Tacitus. Sallust was a truth-seeker, but was under the spell of party tradition, fails to mention sources and was careless with his chronology. However, he was skillful in depicting character. Livy is noteworthy for his psychological delineation of character and gift of presentation, but he is deficient in documentary research, methodical testing, critical selection and his main interests is rhetorical. Tacitus has a lofty outlook and love of truth. He is pragmatic and severely critical. He is adept in character sketching and psychological analysis, but he's also influenced by party spirit and is distortingly pessimistic and resorts to rhetorical finery. A later contemporary of the Romans is the often overlooked Jewish historian Josephus, who gives account of events in which he personally participated. However, his statements often need verification and he wrote according to the historical canons of the day and on the side of the Roman Emperor. Most importantly, he gives one of the very few non-Christian testimonies that refer to a historical Jesus.

The Medieval period started with works in Christian antiquity. Eusebius was the author of a Chronicle and a history of the Church. His history of the Church is a good source with important original documents not extant elsewhere and its method of treatment, which was critical for its day. St. Jerome revised and supplemented Eusebius' Chronicle, which furnished the conventional chronological framework for historiography all thru the Middle Ages. When discussing the medievalist, it is important to note, as was the case with the Ancients for the most part, that none of their work rises to modern standards of criticism and discrimination in the use of historical sources wasn't typical. "History" in the Middle Ages meant everything told and written in books, but many do show more than a measure of caution in dealing with sources.

Gregory of Tours wrote the History of the Franks, which is the most important work on the 6th Century Franks. The Venerable Bede wrote the Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation and was modern in method and included a bibliography of his own writings in the aforementioned work. Otto of Freising wrote the Two Cities and he posited an objective and impartial aim for historians. Interestingly, he believed that history passed from east to west and as there was no more land left in Europe, the end of the world was nigh! Salvian wrote De gubernation Dei in which he painted a picture of moral and economic confusion that went with the barbarian invasions of the 5th Century. He believed that the disintegration of the Roman Empire was a triumph of barbarian virtue over Roman vice. Einhard's Life of Charlemagne was probably the first and best secular biography written in the Middle Ages in contrast to Asser's Life of King Alfred which was poorly organized, but is remarkable because it is the only existing primary source of its subject. Matthew Paris wrote a Chronicle that he also illustrated. He was a prolific chronicler and hagiographer. Froissart, yet another writer of a Chronicle, echoed the views of his contemporaries and really had no original thought, but his work is a mirror on his era. Philip de Commines wrote Memoirs and was interested in what events reveal about men more than the men themselves.

The Italian Renaissance, or the age of Humanism, saw both Christian and Secular (or even Pagan) historians advance the field of history. The latter group elevated the Graeco-Roman world as a model for literature and art as well as standards of private and public conduct. Both groups worked to restore the 10th Century copies of ancient texts and printed them with the advent of the printing press. The Renaissance saw the beginnings of formal historical method, an example of which was the Italian Lorenzo Valla's work of historical criticism attacking (rightly) the authenticity of the "Donation of Constantine."

The Sixteenth thru Early Eighteenth Centuries saw many general developments in historical method. The critical attitude was given impetus by the Protestant Reformation. The Magdeburg Centuries was an aggressively pro-Protestant work and was countered by Baronius, a Catholic scholar, whose Annales ecclesiastici was marked by vast research and sound criticism. The period also saw the emergence of the Bollandists, a group of Jesuits who began editing existing lives of the Saints by applying textual criticism and authentication. Their hagiographical series known as the Acta Sanctorum was a landmark of historical technique.

The Bollandists were also involved in the "bella diplomatica," a series of academic controversies between Jesuit and Benedictine scholars that resulted in permanent gains in critical history and paved the way for source analysis. The most important of these incidents involved the Jesuit Bollandist Papebroch and the Benedictine Mabillon. Papebroch challenged the genuinness of cetain charters of the Merovingian period and Mabillon came to the defense. He drew up a series of tests to distinguish genuine documents from false. This resulted in his De re diplomatica, which laid the foundation for the sciences of diplomatics (the exact reproduction of original documents) and paleography. Papebroch was the first to congratulate Mabillon on his success and the former's letter to his colleague is an expression of the correct attitude in an academic controversy.

History was becoming more distinct from literature. Mabillon's De re diplomatica is often called the first methodology. Gerhard Johann Voss' Ars historia was the first effective statement that "history is an independent subject of study." Henri Griffit also wrote a work that has been characterized as the "most significant book on method after Mabillon's" and the "most clear-cut statement of fundamentals of historical research." The shaping of methodology also owed much to the atheistic and anti-Christian writings of Charles de Montesquieu. His Considerations uncovered various factors that influenced Roman history and his Esprit des lois set forth geographical and social conditions which effected the various forms in which the state had assumed in different lands. Finally, the philosopher Leibniz formulated his law of historical continuity in which every historical phenomenon is the effect of antecedent phenomena and the cause of phenomena that follow.

The closing decades of the Eighteenth and all of the Nineteenth Century saw methodology make notable strides due to various causes. Johann Herder opened the way to a genetic or evolutionary concept of history and, along with Barthold Niebuhr, was a major influence at the University at Berlin. Barthold Niebuhr emphasized that historians had an obligation to appraise sources carefully and from the viewpoint of evidential value. In essence, he codified a method of source criticism. The rise of Nationalism after the Napoleonic Wars as nations became concsious of their own past. Voltaire had anticipated this history of civilization, or kulturgeschichte in his Le siecle de Lous XIV.

The Romantic Movement, a reaction to the rationalism of the Age of Reason, drew attention to the Christian viewpoint in history and held up the Middle Ages as the flowering of Christian spirit. One of the Romanticists, Chateaubriand is said to have unlocked the Middle Ages. The cultivation of legal history also advanced methodology as historians (like Savigny) researched the history of German and Roman law during the Middle Ages.

The literary study of classical scholarship, philology, also gained new attention and elevated the study of historical linguistics. Friedrich Wolf infamously tackled the "Homeric question" to prove his theory that the Homeric poems had multiple authors. He aggressively used "higher criticism" to prove his point and inspired rationalists who applied his method to the Bible. Wolf's theory is no longer favored, but his method of procedure, especially his use of internal criticism, has become convention. Finally, John Lingard, in his History of England, strove to use only original sources in his research and is a landmark in historiography.

The Modern Era was probably most affected by the "Father of Modern History," Leopold von Ranke. He was the inventor of the historical seminar in which his students performed first hand investigation of source material under the guidance of a professional. His exhortation to "go to the sources" instigated the "cult of the document" in the modern historical profession. Ranke's students disseminated throughout Europe, then America, and brought his teachings with them. Less celebrated is Lord John Acton. He was a Catholic who was prohibited from attending Cambridge because of his faith and went to learn in Munich instead. He became convinced of the importance of political liberty in the modern state. He eventually returned to England and ascended to the Chair of History at Cambridge. He planned one of the first great corporate works, the Cambridge Modern History. He had a profound influence on his contemporaries and the development of British historical studies.

The modern era also saw the emergence of collections, which overcame a major handicap of inaccessability to necessary sources that were often buried in public or private archives. The Monumenta Germania Historia (MGH) of Germany, Documents Inedits of France and the Rolls Series of Great Britain are all examples of these. But this was just the tip of the iceburg. By the Twentieth Century, photographic reproduction of source materials and microfilm of newspapers and other written works hastened the democratization of historical research, as did the wide availability of already translated texts. Technology has continued to improve the accessibility of source data with computers and the internet. Thus, in this current atmosphere of massive data availability from multiple sources, the need to promote sound method is important to maintain solid scholarship.

Up Next: Practicing The Historical Method

Introduction to Historical Method: The Meanings of History

[Nota Bene: What follows is Part 2 of a five-part series entitled Introduction to Historical Method. The Series Index is located here.]

The Meanings of History

Introduction

Many think that history is passive and unalterable. It has been called an "exciting and vivid costume drama" or "a tedious catalogue of dates." This attitude towards history is largely a result of people being taught that history is a Static process, that it never changes. This is the predominant way it is taught in our schools and is usually considered BORING. History as taught in college, especially on the graduate student level, is shown to be more of a Dynamic process. The essential plot and the people are the same, but new interpretations are investigated. This last is what is known as revisionism. Unfortunately, revisionism has gained a negative connotation because of the excessive zeal with which some historians have attempted to rewrite history. Some of these radical historians (left, right and middle) have too often thrown the baby out with the bath water when reassessing historical events. They are guilty of anachronism or "presentism"--applying the morals and mores of the present to the past--and have produced historical re-interpretations that seem excessively critical and dismissive of previously honored historical actors. This has alienated many non-historians who have in turn shut out all attempts at historical reinterpretation and resigned themselves to the boring, static history they learned in school. Historical revisionism is good, but it must be done correctly and carefully.

Static and Dynamic Concepts of History

As mentioned, the Static form is the prevalent form and is basically a fixed story of the past. Alternatively, the Dynamic concept of history is a story of the past that is in constant dialogue with the present. Contrary to any impression which may have been given, not all historians embrace the dynamic concept. They would prefer that past interpretations be kept as they are. Some are simply disconcerted with the idea of shifting from a Static to a Dynamic concept, though this is probably not so much the case any more. It would seem that these historians have lapsed into a comfortable belief that some history has already been adequately researched and nothing new has come up. Perhaps they have confused Past Actuality with its Record?

The primary benefit of a dynamic concept of history is that it continually invites historians to reassess the past. If the scholarship is good, it will be embraced, if not, it will be rejected. This concept of a "changing past" offers intellectual reward and inspiration to keep researching. This does not mean that responsible historians are attempting to change the past, rather, they are always striving for a better explanation.

Revisionism

Revisionism is a central tenet of historical scholarship. It is the unending search for fresh material, sources and interpretations of the past. The debates which develop out of revised interpretations of the past are essential to the field of history. As has been said, the term "Revisionist" has gained a negative connotation, but it is not some new phenomena; it's a constant process that has gone on for centuries, though especially the last few. Why should we revise history?

As the pace of change quickens, from such forces as science and technology and the rapid dissemination of information, there arises a pressure to revise accounts of the past. Human's identities are wrapped up in the past. As our self-perceptions in the ever-changing present change, our view of past actuality also changes. New questions are asked about the past, especially as new, previously ignored groups (minorities and women, for example) emerge. Also, new historians may revisit "old" records or these records may gain new importance and are reinterpreted. The philosophies of the Eighteenth Century, dominated by the Enlightenment, inspired a desire to use revision of history in a campaign to exult reason.

Voltaire and Gibbon

Voltaire broke with long established tendencies of studying history and Edward Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire offered a new interpretation for why the Roman empire fell. Gibbon asserted that Christianity turned the minds of the Roman leaders from problems of this life to the afterlife and they also suffered from "immoderate greatness." Both Gibbon and Voltaire wrote reverentially of past governments and countries. Their works are regarded as classics and were manifestos to advance liberty and reason. They weren't supporters of their contemporary governments. This idealogy inspired them to reassess past interpretations of history as they looked for ways to buttress their own arguments against the status quo. They were searching for historical precedents.

Malthus, Marx and new forms of History

The Reverend Thomas Malthus, "the gloomy economist," was concerned with population growth. He viewed contemporary history as a history of higher classes and believed that a history of the general population was needed. He also believed that statistical analysis was key and called on others to do research in his Essay on the Principle of Population. Heeding his call, historians studied 200 years of statistics related to the poor and the general population. This led to the development of the social sciences, especially demographics, as a reaction to history of the wealthy. After the study, Malthus concluded that lower classes couldn't control their lust and he proposed to keep population in check by keeping wages at subsistence level. Essentially, he felt that government should simply leave the poor alone rather than make life better for them. Before continuing, it is important to provide some context.

Malthus' study occurred during the Industrial Revolution when massive demographic change and political unrest developed as people moved from farms to factories in or near the city. Malthus' concern with population growth didn't properly factor in the Industrial Revolution so his perception of the overpopulation problem was skewed. His conclusion that the best way to control overpopulation was to basically let the poor fend for themselves, or die trying, was a bad idea, to say the least. Yet, his investigation opened up an area of inquiry, the study of the common man, which proved beneficial. A fine example of the silver lining on a very dark cloud.

Meanwhile, during the Industrial Revolution (which Malthus missed), militant groups of workers evolved out of social unrest as they vowed to fight for better wages and working conditions. How could this be accomplished? Karl Marx studied the roots of social unrest and thought that he had an answer in his Communist Manifesto of 1848. This was not a work of scholarship, but rather a call to arms. Marx believed that human history was the history of class struggle, which proved to be one of the most sweeping statements ever made in the history of History. Marx believed each epoch related to economic interests and challenged people to think about the causes of social unrest.

Slowly at first, historians began to embrace his concepts, some more wholeheartedly than others. The Marxist school was dominant through the 20th Century, though it took a serious fall with that of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Historians didn't necessarily embrace Marxism, though there were a quite a few who did, but used it as a new way of thought and a new focus for research. Marxism helped to reveal that "the people" could be studied and that history was more than the study of leaders of nations. It was a juxtaposition of old form with new methods. Today, many Marxists still cling to the more utopian ideas of the theory and continue to champion neo-Marxist philosophies. Time will tell if Marxism will regain its status as a major school of historical thought or if its valuable aspects have already been accepted and its time for the rest of it to wither away.

People's History

The rapid transformations of the 18th Century, along with the influences of Malthus and Marx, also created a new movement towards what became known as 'Peoples History.' In 1874, Reverend John Richard Green wrote A Short History of English Peoplein which he passed over the traditional historical highlights and the elite and instead focused on the average people. It was released at a time when populist and nationalist movements and "phobias" (such as anglophobia) were prevalent. It was a very popular work and was translated into many languages. Who were "the people" Green wrote about? He didn't include women or minorities. He also spoke of the "English people", thereby implying an acceptance of the nation as the primary social unit that is to be studied. As a result, Green's work accelerated revisionism as a younger generation embraced the core of his idea and took it further. They began to recognize that other social units, besides "the nation," were legitimate. This eventually led to studies in minority history and women's history.

W.E.B. Dubois was an African-American scholar who was impressed by Marx. He wrote of "Negro History" and founded the Journal of Negro History. His quote, "Historical invisibility is a virtually universal corrollary to powerlessness" provided he and others with inspiration to delve into the history of those who had been "forgotten." For his part, he rescued black history from obscurity and the biases of white historians. All of the books that he wrote went un-reviewed, denying him acknowlegement as a scholar by his peers, but he brought about the expansion of black history and opened the door for others. A new body of scholarship was created that increased the overall understanding of history and increased the racial pride of blacks and glorified their goals. Dubois' work showed that a good study could educate the majority and foster an attitude of equality and opportunity. Other minorities, such as Hispanics and Native Americans, became interested in studying history. Women also became increasingly engaged in historical research that dealt specifically with women's history. Many like to point to June Sochen's Herstory as the pivotal work in Women's History. The title evoked the necessity of a story told by a woman other than that told by male historians.

What of the future of People's History in all of its varieties? As can be inferred, it has been often used as a tool by various "movements" as a path to legitimization. The desire for group recognition is understandable and admirable, but it also lends itself to bias and a tendency to gloss over the bad and highlight the good of a particular overlooked group. At the same time, it does exactly the opposite with the perceived "oppressors" (usually, rich, elite, white men).

Initially, particularly in minority history, the elite of these groups, such as Malcolm X or George W. Carver, were highlighted. As the genre matured and developed, more studies of average people were done. The methods used in People's history are often the same as those used in sociology and there are many instances of cross-fertilization. This points to a danger of losing the actual craft of history as a viable discipline within the genre of People's history, but most historians still do rely on a narrative form of exposition. What is required for People's historians is to maintain or rediscover good methodology, ignore the temptation to propogandize and to properly tell history. Regardless, their work conjures up debate, which is always beneficial.

The Annales School and Cliometrics

In 1929, a new kind of historical scholarship, called the Annales School, arose. Its practitioners aimed to capture the totality of the human experience and relied heavily on social sciences to achieve this goal. They emphasized the enduring patterns of culture that changed little over time. Central to their approach was a rejection of event oriented history as such events were just "ripples on a lake." A concern with events was replaced with a search for societal patterns. The concept of mentalites was put forth, the idea that a particular way of life and values persisted over time, despite upheavals. Marc Bloch and Fernand Braudel were the key founders of the Annales school and it was Braudel who coined the term longue duree, the vast sweep of time during which little real change occurred. He did this in his The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, written in 1949, which emphasized the area around the Mediterranean basin rather than a particular nation. No doubt, he was influenced by his times (Nationalism, Communism, World War II) in attempting to write history in this manner. As a result, the Annales school, in its purest form, began to throw out any sense of history as story and became a conceptual melting pot of disciplines, including sociology, anthropology and geology.

Another method, Cliometrics, also came to the fore during this time. Cliometricians attempt to use quantification to reveal historical meaning and rely on statistics, computers and scientific models to achieve their goal. Their work was very valuable, especially in the particular area of Economic history, but there is a tendency for cliometricians to reject source material that can't be quantified. They term such material as "soft" or "impressionistic" and use them reluctantly or only to support their "hard" evidence. As a result, Cliometrics is a self-limiting field in that its practitioners can only study such topics as have suitable amounts of statistical data. Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman's Time on the Cross provides an example of Cliometrics being taken too far. The authors set out to disprove the accepted view of slavery and ended up seeming to attempt to make the institution of slavery look beneficial based on their statistical evidence. Their study opened the entire school of Cliometrics to attack. Included among its attackers was Jacques Barzun, whose now-classic Clio and the Doctors poked holes in the growing scientification of history and also was an eloquent plea for keeping history in the domain of narratives.

Psychology and History

Psychohistory attempts to apply the Freudian or other psychoanalytic methods to historical study. The inherent problem within the field is that there are roughtly 15 generally recognized methodologies of clinical analysis and the question of which-to-apply-when is a genuinely critical question. Nonetheless, psychohistory is a good tool for dealing with motive as it seeks to determine the real, often unstated, reason of the actions of historical entities. Erik Erikson's book Young Man Luther was probably the first example of this approach. Lewis Namier used a psychohistorical approach in his work on the British House of Commons and Fawn Brodie's psychobiography of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, also is a notable work in the field. Brodie's work showed that man's inner life affects all and that to illuminate it takes technique as well as empathy and nuance.

Psychohisotry is a bold discipline that believes in the science of clinical evidence. It also lends itself to narrative and has helped revive the historical biography. Social psychology (integration of the South in the 1950's) and abnormal psychology (Hitler) also add dimensions to the field. The primary problem of psychohistory is that its practitioners often must resort to post- mortem psychoanalysis of their subject, something that neither Freud nor those of other psychological schools had in mind when developing and expanding upon their theories of psychoanalysis.

Changing Roads to the Past

As has been seen, history is an organic, dynamic, and not anachronistic, process. Despite fads and trends, it is still usually expressed in a narrative form, though those approaches are also evolving. A definitive history is non-existant and scholars refrain from using the term anymore as it implies a static body of knowledge and lends support to those who criticize the validity of historical scholarship. Additionally, the teaching of Historiography, the study of the practice of history influenced by ideas of continuity, must continue. Related to the maintenance of an awareness of historiography is a mastery of sound methodology and a willingness to embrace new techniques with the ability to discriminate between valid theories and fads while being critical of the latter. As has been seen, many of the new theories of historical research have been valid, if not overestimated, in their comprehensive ability to explain history. There is no one magic method that stands above the others and the historians task is to consider these approaches, in addition to their own preferred method, as they strive to create the historical record.

Up Next: The History of Historical Method