Historians and Ideology (World War 2 and the Cold War)

 

The historians in the reading have been an interesting, and in some cases, intriguing group of people to read about. What they accomplished, and the insights they shared as well as their lasting influence has been an integral part of this interesting journey in Historiography. It is also interesting to see what a lot of these historians actually looked like. And on the internet, of course, you can find out. Micheal Ignatieff's expressions are amusing, serious, contemplative and in some places, lighthearted. Marc Bloch's expressions in the black and white photos seem sympathetic, cerebral, kind and slightly sad. Fernand Braudel's expressions seem slightly morose, a little standoffish, focused and in a few photos, slightly amused. Lucien Febvre's expression is a firm one and one expressing, perhaps a little impatience, a slight touch of severity, and perhaps the miss-impression that he might have had other things on his mind when the black and white photos were taken. Some people might claim that reading a lot of History is a good solution for insomnia, but it depends on who is reading about who and perhaps when.

I felt I knew each of the historians in the reading a little better after seeing their picture and reading about what they wrote. And some of them amaze me to no end, like Marc Bloch, who was one of the founders of journal Annales d'histoire and who had a significant influence on Historiography regarding multi-disciplinary cooperation. Not only was he at the forefront of a lot of rational, significant and novel approaches to historiography, but he died in 1944 by firing squad because of his involvement in the French Resistance (the Vichy Government) in World War II. The people who worked in the resistance in France (and other countries) during the war were not faint of heart, but ventured, at the risk of their lives to shorten the war in their own sphere or domain of influence. I can only have admiration for people like that.

Another amazing person was Michael Ignatieff. Some of his quotes are so profound and thought provoking that I was tempted to post them on social media. For example, “The chief moral obstacle in the path of reconciliation is the desire for revenge.” And how true this is. I have spent some time as an ESL teacher in South Korea. I have met lovely Korean people and lovely Japanese people. From time to time, I had to sometimes remind my Korean students (some of whom sometimes stated that they hated Japan and Japanese people) that the government of Japan, in the past, did terrible things (comparable to the Nazis, but for a longer period) but that this did not mean that most Japanese people were, or are bad people. Nevertheless, something specific Michael Ignatieff wrote is very appropriate here. “This last dimension of reconciliation - the mourning of the dead – is where the desire for peace must vanquish the "longing for revenge.” And perhaps, this might be precisely what the problem is in regards to Korean and Japan.

Korea is a beautiful and amazing country and Japan is also a wonderful and exotic country. One of Korea's shortcomings is that the letting go of the “longing for revenge,” does not appear to be forthcoming. One of Japan's shortcomings is that a genuine and holistic account of history has not appeared to be fully forthcoming (which continually angers Koreans). I am making no attempt whatever to wade into the controversy and I am simply stating my observations.

The ideas of Michael Ignatieff were instrumental in the years after World War II. The contrast between the countries who foreshadowed his prescription for peace and those who did not is massive, and even this word is an understatement. What he said about the past reveals an insightful revelation about this man's ability to understand the heart, or the root of the matter. “When it comes to healing, one is faced with the most mysterious process of all. For what seems apparent in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, and in South Africa is that the past continues to torment because it is the not the past. The people are not living in a serial order of time but in a simultaneous one, in which the past and the present are a continuous agglutinated mass of fantasies, distortions, myths and lies.” The basic idea was that time made no impression whatsoever in respect to those who thirsted for revenge and who were still emotionally imprisoned in the tragic wrongs of the past, committed, as viewed by the victims, by those they could only see as the aggressors. It is common knowledge that the Nazi's committed unspeakable, heartbreaking atrocities against not only their own citizens, but citizens of other countries in their death camps. Similarly, yet not of so severe a nature, the government of Chile, at one point, also committed great wrongs against its people. The respective leaders of the two countries later took measures to heal the nations they ruled. Ignatieff spoke of President Alwyn of Chile and of German Chancellor Willy Brandt, and how these men, by taking responsibility for a great wrong they were not essentially guilty of, helped their nations heal. I felt that Michael Ignatieff's solutions were brilliant and I hope more countries, or world leaders can follow suite. Accepting responsibility for the wrongs of someone else, may not have seemed desirous to these world leaders, but healing did take place because world leaders like President Alwyn of Chile and German Chancellor Willy Brandt thought more of national need than their pride.

Fernand Braudel was another interesting historian. He achieved understandable notoriety for his part in helping to establish the Annales school as preeminent along the lines of research in France regarding historiography. As a historian, he was one of the most prominent trailblazers in Historiography in France (not counting other countries) from the 1950's to the 1960's. I found a number of his quotes to be sensible and food for thought at the same time. “Strictly speaking, an event can acquire a whole series of references and associations. It can sometimes point to profound movements and as a result of the artificial (or genuine) game of 'cause' and 'effect', so dear to the historians of the past, it can dominate a time period far beyond its own bounds.” By a convenient coincidence, a perhaps, loose example of this might happen to be, in some ways, the French Revolution which is the topic I am undertaking in my Historiography essay.

Some observations are not out of harmony with the idea of 'cause' and 'effect' that Braudel mentioned as being able to dominate a time period far beyond it's own bounds. I might be incorrect, but it is my understanding that Bastille day is one of the most important holidays in France today. The storming of the Bastille could not, in my reckoning, be separated from the French Revolution. Neither could the French National Anthem, which, to my knowledge (and I am not above being corrected by someone who knows more about it than I do) has hardly changed in tune or lyrics since the French Revolution, even though there have been several lesser national upheavals since 1789.

Everyone at one time or another has probably looked forward to enjoying their favorite soda not knowing that some rogue or rascal has tampered with it, and of course, if you are not expecting it, you can't help but be surprised when upon opening it, it is far more fizzy than you felt you wanted, and you end up with a reflex brief shower. Hopefully some of it got whoever had that terrible idea in the first place. In some ways, the French Revolution was a tragic parallel to a can of soda that someone shook up and of course, Historians in France and other countries were not immune to this. Voltaire died a year before the French Revolution occurred, otherwise, what he might have said about it might have been interesting if he avoided an acquaintance with the “national razor.” The shock of rulers, academics of the time, noblemen and military leaders was certainly palpable. Edward Burk, in his “Reflections on the French Revolution,” published in 1790, does not mince words.

“Were all these dreadful things necessary? Were they the inevitable results of the desperate struggle of determined patriots, compelled to wade through blood and tumult to the quiet shore of a tranquil and prosperous liberty? No! nothing like it. The fresh ruins of France, which shock our feelings wherever we can turn our eyes, are not the devastation of civil war; they are the sad but instructive monuments of rash and ignorant counsel in time of profound peace.”

The Duke of Brunswick at that time was a military leader and had this to say. “After arbitrarily violating the rights of the German princes in Alsace and Lorraine, disturbing and overthrowing good order and legitimate government in the interior of the realm, committing against the sacred person of the king and his august family outrages and brutalities which continue to be renewed daily, those who have usurped the reins of government have at last completed their work by declaring an unjust war on his Majesty the emperor and attacking his provinces situated in the Low Countries.”

My first inclination is to theorize that the interpretations by Historical scholars previous to the French Revolution might not be easily applicable since an event of so much magnitude, so stark, dark, bloody and ruthless had occurred up to that point in recent history, but I intend to test this theory.

The Challenge of Inclusivity in Historiography

 

When I was attempting to immerse myself in the reading, my understanding of historical inclusivity (not the same connotation as the modern word) was predictably, a little foggy at first. But as I read further, I began to understand it more, and what I was learning called to mind an illustration. As my understanding solidified, it reinforced the illustrations that made the concept of inclusivity more concrete to me and I have included them below. The first part of the illustration could be loosely compared the study of history before inclusivity made an entrance, and the last part of the illustration could be compared to the progress of history by researchers of various stripes who nonetheless utilized inclusivity. 

At some point, for one reason or another, everyone has been in a hallway trying to locate a certain door. Most people at one time or another have had to take a chance in either knocking on or opening a door. Imagine someone dressed like a detective quickly tip-toeing up to a door in a hallway and after some hesitation, opening it to the sounds of many voices, all talking at the same time. You might conclude that the room was sound proof since there wasn't any noise in the hall before the door was opened. You might conclude that an interesting discussion is underway and that everyone in the room has something different to say about it. Is it a scandal? Is it a political debate? (Is there a difference?) Is it a raffle?

The person shuts the door quickly and pulls their hat closer to their eyes. Tip-toeing to an opposite door, they put their ear up next to it. They have to assume that this room is sound proof also. They open it to the sounds of several musical instruments being played along with some singing. You hear a guitar, a piano, some percussion and...hopefully not a kazoo. You are able to recognize that the people inside are songwriters, and after a minute of listening to their talk and music you realize that they all have different ideas as to what the exact lyrics and tune or melody should be. It could not be called cooperation or a group effort. The odds are that they are not going to win any record contracts.

When I was thinking about the discussion topic, and as I was reading the material, what I read reminded me of people who all wanted a say in an interesting topic and musicians who had challenges because they did not have the same exact idea of what the music and lyrics should be for the song they wanted to write.  Because of the different backgrounds and biases, the historians who were on the scene before inclusivity made an entrance all had different priorities and ideas about history and historiography. It was edifying to read what each of them had to say and why, though of course I could not truly say that the different disciplines that the different researchers used were more effective than what I had gleaned after reading what researchers of all stripes produced after they chose to utilize inclusivity as a potent tool in their arsenal to further historical integrity and to encourage a more fully, well rounded approach in methodology within historiography.    

Imagine once more, that the person dressed as a detective tip-toes to yet another door with a dubious expression. They open it to the sound of music and you realize that this room contains another group of songwriters. You can hear true harmony coming out the door along with someone finger-picking on a guitar, light percussion, a violin and a subdued piano in the background. When the music stops, you hear a discussion where different people are not vying to say the most, but are adding helpful suggestions in turn for how the music or lyrics could be better. When they begin once again, you think to yourself, these songwriters could get a record contract! This last group was very inclusive in regards to using their collective strengths to make something better than if they had been doing their own thing. You notice that the person dressed like a detective walks to another door and opens it very slightly and the sound of a discussion can be heard. In this discussion, one person is talking at a time, though there are number of people in the room. Every minute or so, a different voice is heard, suggesting information that seems to come from the particular strength or expertise of the person in question. You notice that the person dressed as a detective is nodding their head as if they agree, at which point, they open the door to the sounds of people welcoming them, and the person shuts the door. 

Marc Bloc and Lucien Fabvre in what is challenging to classify as either a lament or an aspiration claim that “one can imagine how many excellent suggestions about methods and interpretations of fact, how many cultural benefits, innovations in intuition, would come to light out of more frequent intellectual interaction between the various groups!” This is followed up with their stated aim. “We aim to challenge these very devastating schisms.” They do not give as much attention to the schisms in question as to their intent and solutions. “We will not use methods articles here and theoretical dissertations there. We will use example and fact.”

James Harvey Robinson stated that, “History should not be as a stationary subject which can only progress by refining its methods and accumulating, criticizing, and assimilation of new material, that it is bound to alter its ideas and aims with the general progress of society and of the social sciences, and that is should untimely play an infinitely more important role in our intellectual life than it has hitherto done.” Up to that point, collective cooperation and inclusivity, if it had even been thought of, had taken a back seat to what was assumed to be the best methods in historiography, which would have been to focus on progress in relation to refining methods or the general progress of society. 

Carl Becker's 'Everyman his own Historian' was very edifying. It was involved but not complex, and because he used specific illustrations to go along with his logic, the result was that the information was easily digestible. In some ways he deviated from, well, what I have seen of previous historians, in that the concepts that he discussed were paralleled by how it was applicable to real life and in some ways, at that time, this was considered by some to be a novel approach.

Marc and Lucien Fabvre departed from the interpretation of historians that preceded them by the then novel concept of conglomerating “researchers of various origins and specializations put together but driven by the same spirit of precise impartiality they will offer as the result of their research on those subjects of which they are specialists and that they themselves has chosen.” To these historians, inclusivity meant an expansion of resources in cooperation and a resource to be wisely utilized.

This idea reminds me of the American NBA all-star team. Basketball players who are normally competitors learning to work together for a common goal. And yet, before Marc Block and Lucien Fabrve, historians of different schools of research could, “come into regular contact without knowing each other.” The efforts of Marc Bloc and Lucien Fabrve added a previously unused strength to Historiography regarding the inclusion of researchers formerly, research-wise, estranged from mutual cooperation. Their adoption of this wise course of action was inclusive in nature and also a descent from affirming the interpretative weakness and methods of past historians.

James Harvey Robinson aspired to leave behind the historical narrative whose reason was for the dwelling on of “anomalous and seemingly accidental occurrences” in order to “dwell rather on those which illustrate some profound historical truth.” On the one hand this may not seem inclusive and it's slight vagueness may cause one to question if it is a departure from the past at all. But, the latter seems to harmonize more closely to what we would call order and that would focus more on the big picture. It is also more in line with what he later described as “the general progress of society.” It is less random and more comprehensive in nature. It was a departure because of Robinson's insistence that, “The old must, therefore, be studied quite as carefully as the new.” A view, perhaps, not embraced by very many at that point.

In 'Perspectives-on-history,' (The news magazine of the American Historical Association), the historian, Alexandra M. Lord compares and contrasts how useful historians can be to one another though they be formal historians or informal historians. She advocates treating high school history teachers as useful colleagues to those who are professors. (not a direct quote) This advocacy, in the end, results in a definite refinement of what the collective, or inclusive efforts of researchers of different stripes, working together, can accomplish.

My topic is the French Revolution and after having read the reading, I am going to try to find more secondary sources the I could determine to utilize inclusivity. Up to this point, I had never put history and inclusivity in the same box. So far as I can tell, unfortunately, the event I am writing about occurred before the historians who began utilizing inclusivity in history were born. As such, I can only expect that primary sources on the French Revolution that utilized inclusivity are as rare as hen's teeth. However, I intend to attempt to include further secondary sources that I could say use inclusivity because it seems to me that it will further ensure the historical integrity of my project.

For myself, I will try to ascertain from research which sources are the most concise and to the point. I will use, of course, sources that are primary and secondary. I will try to use sources that show rather than tell what happened. I will use sources that, like Carl Becker, use everyday examples to solidify or illustrate historical concepts. I will not use sources I feel may be of a questionable value or of uncertain origin. It is my intent that anyone reading my essay on the French Revolution will be a little sorry when it is finished, sort of like a good movie when it is over. How will I manage that? Well, I am not quite certain yet, but if I can turn a historical event into something people like reading, it will not be because I have forgotten that I am an aspiring historian, or that I am using proper methods of Historiography. If I can keep to the rules of historical writing and historiography, while trying to be as unbiased as I can and making it a pleasurable experience, and if I can enjoy what I wrote, like a cook who sets a high standard for himself, and who enjoys his food when it is done, I can reasonably expect to have an optimistic outlook.

The influence of Leopold Von Ranke and Karl Marx on Historiography

 

It was an education to read about Leopold Von Ranke and Karl Marx although I did not perceive them to be of the same flavor. Reading about Leopold Von Ranke in the textbooks and in other places was very interesting. And for an aspiring historian, quite edifying. Once in a great while, you might happen to read about people from history whom you may never have even heard of, and yet, you sometimes discover a connection in how your views harmonize with the perspective of a long dead historian. I sometimes muse on how much or how little my own views might parallel the views of those whose writings and lives I am examining. I was pleasantly surprised at how much I agreed with Leopold Von Ranke. Two examples would be his insistence on sources and his open and welcome perspective on metaphysics. Credit can be given to him in regards to organizing a system of order in regards to historical integrity...an orderliness that could easily become compromised or muddled by a less than strict adherence to credible, traceable sources. I found the premise of a number of his quotes to be quite edifying. “You have reckoned that history ought to judge the past and to instruct the contemporary world as to the future. The present attempt does not yield to that high office. It will merely tell how it really was.” And that is what I wish to know as an aspiring historian...to know what happened. Of course, this is not always possible, but Ranke's brief quote cuts to the chase, and it is that brief logic that is remarkable and refreshing.
          My dad has a sign on his desk that reads, "Creative minds are rarely tidy." Well for me, a lack of orderliness does not contribute to how creative I am. Von Ranke's establishing of historical sources as a preliminary to a good and truthful historical narrative clears up a lot by automatically separating opinion or speculation with specific details as to what actually happened, according to reputable sources. This speaks to not only historical reliability but integrity also. Von Ranke has an effect on what I write because citing sources is the hallmark of a good historian, and whether it be primary or secondary sources, reputable historians will always include sources, and that will include sources that will inform me regarding the French Revolution which is the subject of my final project.                                                                                                                                                                          I was also interested to read on Karl Marx whom I had not read much about. Though, to not read much, and then read a little more did not really change my impression of him since the little more that I read reinforced my initial impression of him which I could not truthfully say was of a flattering nature. He famously said, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” And yet his communist manifesto was in part an infamous instrument that enabled untold hundreds of thousands after him to partake in what might be called an opiate of oppressors in oppressing the masses while adhering to an idea that professed to free the oppressed whether from the Czar or King or government, religion, the boss, poverty or ignorance. Having not read much of Marx previously, I was blown away by how naïve and shortsighted I felt Marx was. One quote really brought this home.

“The common ownership of all means of production would bar the forming of social classes and establish a perpetual, stable, and perfect harmony between the mode of production (assumed to stay forever that of an industrial economy), productive relationships, and the superstructure.”

The principle problem is that someone would still be in control, and could enough justifiable faith be put in this person or persons that they would not become corrupt under any circumstances? With such abundant examples in the annuls of history as to the fact that power corrupts, the idea that there would be a succession of people, each of whom would set aside their own interests and selfish inclinations for an ideology that rejects any theory as to the origin of morality, to me, seemed an absurdity. And yet, it seems that this is what Marx was encouraging. If people really believed this that this was possible, what a sad delusion! And Marx's pipe dream of such noble actions by the leaders of any communist party does not play out in history. Did Marx envision through his communist manifesto checks and balances to rein in the power of the few, or could they become dictators? Have there been communists who tried to do the right thing? Yes. Gorbachev trying his best to work with Ronald Reagan is a good example but he was one of the very few exceptions. And to many, many people it is also understandable that the ideas of Marx made him something of a hero, because at that time with so many being factory workers in the age of mass mercantile production, nobody had ever heard of sick leave, pension, or pregnancy leave or other safeguards of the rights of workers, many of which, Marx's ideas seemed to address or give hope. At that point, such just aspirations may have been similar to the fiction recently published in the book Les Miserable, where Jean Valjean, masquerading as the mayor of Montreuil had a factory where most of his workers were to receive such thoughtful care. The desperation of so many factory workers in Germany and other countries may have made them view the ideas of Marx with hope, if they did not know in what autocratic direction many of his ideas would proceed. Marx's idea of course would effect how historians practiced their craft in the countries where communism and socialism held the scepter of power. "Old history, with its tales of wars, dynasties, treaties, and economic exploitation, would end. For a while historians could rewrite in the Marxist manner the story of the past prior to the great change." Not to change gears or jump to conclusions, I do recall a certain novel with what I could describe as dark communist undertones where re-writing history was one of the themes of the book. Having read the reading, I could not discern, outside of communists or socialist countries that Marx had any great following or had advanced any theories or notable ideas that still effect historians today, aside from an epitaph on how the ideas he expressed in his communist manifesto have largely failed. I have not been able to discern that any of the sources I will use for my project on the French Revolution have used Marx or anything he wrote or taught as a resource. With Von Ranke, he is from what I can derive the originator of how historians today cite sources for whatever claims or narrative they produce. Because the sources I use (secondary in addition to primary)  are reputable historians, they are also subscribing to the sensible system Von Ranke came up with in citing where they get their information from. 

The Enlightenment and Historiography

 

I enjoyed the reading regarding the enlightenment and historiography and I found it to be interesting and informative. There were a number of actors who came upon the stage of history, specifically as historians providing a narrative of what occurred during or leading up to the enlightenment as well as the why and how. What I should have expected was in some respects unexpected. I sometimes have to remind myself to step back and let go of any preconceived ideas I might have about people I may have heard about or read about and have long since forgotten. I might say to myself, "I don't remember anything about that guy except his or her name, so let's start afresh." And since there were some names I had never heard of, in their case, it was easy to start afresh.    

Though not intended to be humorous, I found what Voltaire said about the church and the state to be very interesting. In relation to the church's influence on the state, state he says, "It (the church) sometimes disturbed its (the state) peace, and at others been its defense; and which, though instituted for the inculcating of morality too frequently gives itself up to politics and the impulse of the human passions." This statement is in some respect akin to something that Ghandi said along similar lines. I had not known much about Voltaire, but I found him to be a fascinating historian and I felt I could relate to him in regards to his fitting fixation on freedom. Coming from what would have been, in his time, an absolute monarchy along with a church whose authoritative tendrils (or flowering vines) were everywhere, it makes sense. The concept of freedom is not valued enough and it's contemplation is not encouraged as much as it ought to be, both in America and in the modern world. Voltaire's real name was François-Marie Arouet, but we, of course, know him by his nom de plum, or pen-name, Voltaire. 

I was delighted to discover that Thomas Carlyle wrote (so far as I have read) using illustrations and analogies which was nice and made it more relatable. I had known about Thomas Carlyle's 'French Revolution' before, though of course, I was less acquainted with his hitherto. Carlyle's French Revolution seems to break the mold of historical narratives with its foray into metaphysics.  

There were a few times reading Hegel that I had to make a conscious effort to prevent my eyes from crossing. There were a few times where I re-read what he wrote. Not being a seasoned sage philosopher, some of what he related here and there required more deliberate unpacking, but as far as history as it has flowed from his time, his efforts resulted in a ripple effect cascading down to effect many historians and how they approach history and historiography. 

These historians and their respective works reflect the enlightenment in that they were new and flew in the face of tradition and expectation from that time. Voltaire was in some respects bold to say what he did about the Church, but what he said was in some respects true. A few hundred years earlier he might have been excommunicated or worse. The story of Galileo and his conflict with the church regarding the controversy of the the center of the universe is a testament to this. Hegel's statement about how the Reformation first attained truth and reality was unanticipated (by myself anyway) coming from a philosopher/historian. I did not find a place where Hegel or Voltaire actually said this, but reading through the lines, I got the impression that they believed there were sincere/good people in religion as well as opportunists, frauds and scoundrels. Thomas Carlyle's mode of narrating history in his, "French Revolution," is unique from history books that precede his, in that he does not relate dates and events as prominently as how and in what manner the characters are progressing or contributing to the historically inevitable conclusion or outcome. Such a manner of writing a historical narrative helped to inspire Charles Dickens who wrote 'A Tale of Two Cities." Dickens claimed that he had read Thomas Carlyle's "French Revolution", five hundred times. 

It is interesting to note that France as a country, was on a different path in the 1700's than Britain, Germany and America. So it makes sense that it's thinkers would also be focused on a different trajectory. In France especially, the old regime of government and church was under siege even before the French Revolution, and according to Historiography, Ancient, Medieval and Modern, "Radically new interpretations came from the French Philosophies." Also, in the same book, "Many of the German Historians taught history as members of law faculties where caution and erudition were praised more than radical innovation."   

In France, Jules Michelet claimed that the all healing balm of nationalism was the prescription for how to constructively deal with all of the social upheavals, turbulence and varying unpredictability. His nationalistic fervor was that despite whatever social class people belonged to, championing nationalism in France was the ultimate answer. "One People! One Country! One France." It is interesting to take this into view considering what George Bancroft in the United States had to say about progress in America in regard to freedom and liberty. According to Bancroft, the history of liberty in America, from being settled by the pilgrims, being ruled by Great Brittan, the revolutionary war, the constitution and the incremental march of freedom and prosperity he saw, was all part of a gradual climb towards liberty, sanctioned as he felt by God's blessings. In France Michelet was using nationalism and in America, Bancroft was using progressivism. The two styles were different from the Enlightenment styles of Hegel, Voltaire and Carlyle. In America, the very nature of the church made it a radically different entity than it was in Europe. Voltaire's varying denunciation of religion was a little different than Bancroft because Voltaire from what I have gleaned (and I want to read further) seems to have left religion behind while Bancroft considered divine providence as the fuel for the fire. Michelet's French nationalism was not really compatible with Hegal's philosophy and the nature of Carlyle's 'French Revolution' was very different than Bancroft's 'History of the United States,' in how he narrated history. The enlightenment figures of Voltaire, Hegel and Carlyle were different from Bancroft in that none of the aforementioned enlightenment thinkers, with the possible exception of Hegel, appeared to put any de facto stock in religion or divine providence. Voltaire wrote before the French Revolution occurred and died a year before it began, thus, with the influence of the monarchy and the church as both an evil and a blessing depending on who was in church or states offices, for Voltaire, as an enlightenment thinker, nationalism could have been something he may only have given lip service to because under the monarchy it was expected whether the citizens truly felt that nationalism offered any answers. All of the enlightenment thinkers including Bancroft wanted a better world as opposed to what had been the past. And none of them forged an identical path with other enlightenment thinkers, but they all had a profound effect on how we view history even today, and a perusal of their interpretations can leave us wiser and more informed.

Medieval and Renaissance Historiography

 

 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.

Greek and Roman Historiography

 

As I read the preliminary comments of the Greek and Roman Historians, I felt I was able to relate to them as well as the challenges and frustrations they faced. In the 'Histories,' Tacitus laments "that the truth of history was impaired in many ways." Among other factors, he ascribes this loss as partly due to the struggle of the free and the oppressed, the high and the low of society not recognizing or caring that their conflict would obscure a more transparent understanding and record of history. A record and understanding that if rendered more clearly would have proved invaluable to their respective and curious descendants. You can just picture Tacitus after hours of poring over very old accounts of history (not nearly as concise and coherent as he might have wished) slumped slightly forward in his Roman chair (perhaps a Savonarola x shaped Curule chair)  and looking wearily out of a window.  Tacitus looks to the left and then to the right and sighs. He shakes his head slightly and rolls his eyes. You can almost feel his disgust and chagrin.  His motivation seems to be in providing as broad and comprehensive a history of the time he writes on while at the same time highlighting specific instances of particular changes and the persons who were often the catalyst of those changes.    With Livy, you can sense his reluctant perseverance. His motivation of relating the past was to be a part of the harmony of past recounting of the history he was relating. What would have been his challenge in an attempt at a faithful account of the history in question? What would have impeded a wholistic rendering of historiography in the history he related? One challenge he admits is that the history in question goes back seven hundred years. In the beginning of the record and as you read further on, there is a sort of transition, as the record continues from not so precise in the certainty of some assertions to a more pronounced certainty and at the middle towards the end, a definite assurance as to the validity of the record that is being delineated. A scarcity of available sources from history from way back is a definite hinderance to wholesome and coherent historiography.  In the account by Thucydides, he asserts that certain reputed events of the past "could not from lapse of time be clearly ascertained." And as he proceeds to give a brief description of the country known afterwards as Hellas, he describes tribes trading spaces in a very unorganized manner, among other things.  One motivation of his seems to be an effort to spotlight just how massively monumental the Peloponnesian wars were for anyone either from his time or another to comprehend. If you read between the lines, there does not seem to be any hesitation on his part regarding his passion for this great event in the past. 

To be completely honest, I have an a priori commitment to a specific world view.  And my observation thus far in life is that my life experience has confirmed to me the validity of that world view. Having said that, I have an open mind, not in that I am going to change it, but that I have an active interest in other people's world views whether it is a priori or not, and I would never shun or disparage, discriminate, or be condescending or patronizing in my treatment of other people because of their world view. I don't like being ignorant if I can help it, and it is always better to courteously ask other people about their worldview rather than to rely on assumptions. Regardless of what they believe, I will treat other people as I want to be treated, with every kindness and consideration. I could not be true to my world view otherwise and I understand that such an approach is not always going to be reciprocated. But making the effort is the important thing to me. Actions speak louder than words so they say, and I prefer it that way. 

I remember reading a caution somewhere in this module against novel historical projects or approaches, and that makes a lot of sense. My purposes for writing and history is on the one hand, novel, but on the other hand, not unaccompanied by many observations as to their connections to other events in history. In a sense, I am like a spider, only I don't eat flies and I don't intend of trapping anyone. I just love big picture! Connecting one historical event with another in a vast and interesting web of history can be a fun voyage of discovery! One interesting example is that King Monguk of what was known as Siam corresponding with Abraham Lincoln on the subject of elephants. Interesting say I! It is sort of like some people and movies. "Oh! That guy is also in this other movie! Hey! That woman is so and so on such and such a movie!" And, historiography has informed me a lot, in a positive way as to how I can write more effectively and coherently, especially as an aspiring historian.  My challenge is to maintain an interest in what might be considered "novel" history and also to be able to support my historical theories with details that are connected to other established historical facts. It is a fun and sort of challenging pursuit and my caution to myself is not to jump to conclusions, but to base, as much as possible,  my conclusions in historical facts.  

What is Historiography?

If someone has a knack for story telling, then it is totally possible to relate an event in the past in an interesting way that will be more than just a recitation of names and dates. A historical event could be told in a dry sort of way as if putting someone to sleep was the intent, or it can be related in such a way that the person listening could not only remember it, but could really identify and relate to the event and the people who were involved. Instead of being the victim, the student or reader can be the beneficiary rather than the victim. I can't really think of any other subject that has the appeal to me that history does. I did not know what the word Historiography meant when I first read it, and I had to read it several times to convince myself that I was pronouncing it correctly. After an introduction to Historiography, I now perceive it to be a pleasantly challenging gallop of discovery and an edifying mental exercise.

The word, Historiography, is a recent immigrant to the shores of my vocabulary and I don't know exactly where it came from, but I am looking forward to uncovering its etymology. I would also like a better grasp of History to be the flying buttress to my writing endeavors, some of which are of a historical nature.

To use an analogy, the concept of Historiography might be similar to someone copying old and valued recipes from an old cookbook that came from someplace in the UK, like Yorkshire, for example. Even if someone from the UK also happened to be present, much of the outdated terminology would be unfamiliar even if the person typing out the recipes also happened to be a cook or chef. These old recipes are not typed, of course, but written on old, yellow and faded pieces of paper, precariously attached to the spine of the cookbook. Of course, the person who is recording all the old recipes into a word processor will have difficulty in not only reading the handwriting, which is written in just the way the originator of the recipes spoke, but in trying to comprehend and record the instructions under the list of ingredients for each recipe. The typist bravely tries their best to produce a concise and clear reproduction of the recipes in the document they are creating that will not confuse any cooks. They are attempting to compile an accurate record of many recipes, or many facts. For example, their endeavors would include not only copying but clarifying them so that they are easily understood once they are rendered in the modern vernacular. Simple cooking instructions for anyone to follow. If pudding is not cooked for too long then it should not burn. It is the job of Historians to also assemble available facts into a coherent, whenever possible chronological record of what actually happened. And sometimes, facts and information are not available. Eventually, the beleaguered writer, or cook who is creating the document realizes that they need a history of the historical documents they have, in this case, recipes. This could come partly from research into the outdated culinary lingo from Yorkshire, and also from different yet perhaps competing theories they may put forward as to what some of the directions might mean in modern English, especially if their search into the culinary lingo of Yorkshire from one hundred years ago does not inform them any further or make them any the wiser for their effort. If this is the case, then it becomes a question of how they or someone else will interpret the recipes. And certainly, there will have already been some interpretation on the part of the typist or cook before this regarding the clarity or lack thereof in the old recipes. And the recipes, unlike modern recipes will eventually involve the typist or cook to at some point going out on a limb and interpreting what so many obscure culinary terms are actually referring to. It begins with what one may expect to be an orderly delineation of facts and information, but eventually it will come down to an interpretation based on the available information, whether it is coherent or not. If there is a lot of information available or just a little, interpretation will inevitably play a role into how that information, that history is viewed. A record of the history in question and interpretation of those records. So far, this has been my understanding of Historiography, and my understanding of it may morph a little as I understand it better in the weeks to come. It is an interesting mental exercise.