After reading about what Historians like Augustine and Francesco Guicciardini and those behind the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle had to say about the history they have communicated as well as their interpretation of it, it seemed fitting to write a brief conjecture or a description of each historian. The reading was like sitting at a dinner table with Augustine and Francesco Guicciardini along with a rather ambiguous person who might represent the Anglo-Saxon Chroniclers. Looking at myself, they may have wondered who the nameless, oddly clothed person was. The setting that I am familiar with may have seemed a little strange to them and perhaps they gawked around before noticing what was on the menu. I may have been sitting there listening to each of them talk in turn. While one was talking, the others, including myself may have been eating something and listening carefully to what the speaker was saying. I looked on my plate and saw that someone had given me a generous portion of food for thought. At least it was not...well, you can fill in whatever unsavory dish you like to dislike. Simply listening to their interpretations of the history they have, or are relating, tells me a bit about each of them. I noticed that each of them wore glasses that were different, but I will touch on this curiosity later.
Likely, as an aspiring Historian, I suspect I will have more run-ins with Augustine, and not to paint everything else he wrote with the same color that I perceived, I sort of get the...perhaps, mistaken impression that he may have liked hearing his own voice more than most. He was not lacking in details. With the Anglo-Saxon Chronicler, I sort of got the impression that those behind it were not interested in being flowery, but they wanted to state history without preamble or any notable preliminaries even though they occasionally repeated small tidbits of History once or twice in succession. They were concise and to the point and that was nice. And with Francesco Guicciardini's Wars of Italy, his relating of History is informative and there is the relieving absence of an over abundance of interpretive details. Like a line of dominos, he narrates history as one event or person having a distinct impact on another event or person. The real question is what sort of glasses they were all wearing. What lenses of bias or prejudice were they seeing through? How did it effect their interpretation? Were the glasses shortsighted glasses or nearsighted glasses? Bifocals might have been nice.
In Augustine's city of God, Augustine in Chapter 28 relates that Rome was sacked and makes many references to the barbaric interruption of the chastity of many who were divested of innocence. At different points, he leaves history almost behind in his interpretation of it. His possible attempt to save face for the divine seemed like a rather insensitive copout that likely did not make any who were victims of barbarity feel any better. The lenses that Augustine seemed to have on were clearly religious. He had religious biases. And in Chapter 4, he attempts to build towards a conclusion where religion does not lose face whereas the pagans do, and it is his interpretation of history that is the vehicle. In Chapter 19, his interpretation of the history of Lucretia and Sextus seems almost like a tug of war, going back and forth over whether she was justified or not regarding her final act. It seems, to me, that his understanding of the word 'interpretation,' seems to have been very broad. And his efforts to paint a wall a different color, while not appearing to truly succeed or convince me, is admirable at the same time.
At the onset of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and throughout, it is delightfully evident that there does not seem to be a whiff of an opinion anywhere in their relating of history. There does not seem to be any interpretation at all. Just a delineation of facts, dates and names. The history is straightforward and reads almost like a set of instructions in that there is not any doubt on the part of the Anglo-Saxon Chroniclers that what is related is just how they prefer that it should be read. We could say that the glasses they wore might be ones with no glass in them and that they represented a single desire to pass on History just as it was.
I had hoped to see the date on the copyright page of Francesco Guicciardini's History of the wars of Italy, in the Internet Archives, but, no such luck. And at first I had to ask myself if I was able to pronounce the guy's last name. After reading various sections of this book, I felt that his narration of History and interpretation of it were very sensible. It flowed rather naturally, and his interpretations of the history he related did not seem absurd or out of touch. I read with interest (partly page 73) of the marriages that took place solely for the purpose of politics, which because of the glasses I have on, rendered it in some ways amusing, but of course, marriages were part of the line of dominos that effected events, and people like Empower Maximillian, his son Philip and Charles VIII. I find Guicciardini's History particularly fine because he relates history, and yet even when he does insert his own interpretation into it, it is sensible and seamless enough that the reader who is not overly familiar with Italian History might not notice. The only biases he seems to have was against the French, which is understandable considering what happened. The glasses he seems to have on are glasses of nationalism, and entities that would disrupt that comfortable understanding of one's own cherished country would naturally produce a bias.
A year ago, I was driving in Southern California at night. My uncle was next to me and could not sleep. It had of course, been very bright earlier in the day and my sunglasses were on the dash. My uncle reached for his glasses. When they were on, he said "I can't see ____!" It turns out that he had put my sunglasses on. No wonder he couldn't see anything.
I do not have glasses on, and yet I do. Like Augustine, the Anglo-Saxon Chroniclers and Francesco Guicciardini, I am subject to biases. I don't really like it, but I do not intend to be idle. I have glasses on that can be a liability to being an effective historian, or they can be a learning opportunity. The topic I have chosen for my project is the French Revolution and I am busy checking out sources for it. I could say that I have biases against the people who were the cause of the Revolution. How could they have been thoughtless enough to let the situation happen at all? France not only lost many people to the guillotine, but artisans, teachers and many knowledgeable citizens understandably fled the country.
The French Revolution is a subject of deep interest to me and yet, there is a lot I do not yet know about it. I realize that I still have glasses on. I have biases about the French Revolution. If I had bifocals on that would be great. To say that the situation was not complicated is not true. What of the different actors? What of the different events that were like dominos causing other events and other notable people to take action whether for good or bad? When Marie Antionette responded to the news that the people of Paris had no bread, she said "Let them eat cake!" (There is some doubt that she actually said this.) Could she have been ignorant of the scarcity of food? Might this response be because she was a very insensitive person? If so, then why did she apologize when she stepped on the foot of the man who was to operate the killing machine that would end her life ere a minute had passed? A bias, might be a useful gauge for me to realize that I am ignorant of some specific facts, and that when presented with the facts after a lot of research, as a historian, my interpretation will be based on what happened, not on how I feel. And it will not be the snack of a moment, but food for thought that will marinate over more than a moment's time. And its a good thing too. A good meal should not be rushed either in the cooking or eating of it. That can be hard to say in today's rushed society, but it is still true and the effort is worth it, especially if you enjoy cooking. So, I must ask myself, what glasses am I wearing? What are my biases? How will it effect my interpretation? In reference to my project, I have a need to remedy my ignorance about the French Revolution and if I have biases, to allow them to become my teachers. I want to wear bifocals but only in the literary and historical sense, and that is one of my aims as an aspiring Historian. To have a balanced, consistent and fair interpretation of history, with sources that are scrutinized and double checked.
No comments:
Post a Comment