Lecture 1: What is historiography and why is it important?

2 meanings of ‘historiography’: It can describe the body of work written on a specific topic. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches. Scholars discuss historiography topically – such as the History of the Weimar Republic or the History of British Imperialism’, or the History of Fashion – as well as different approaches and genres, such as political history or social history. refers to both the study of the methodology of historians and development of history as a discipline The research interests of historians change over time, and in recent decades there has been a shift away from traditional diplomatic, economic and political history toward newer approaches, especially social and cultural studies

The question of human agency and human experience? The question of historical change and what causes change? The question of scale. The relationship between ‘particulars’ and ‘universals’ or, to frame it otherwise, between historical ‘facts’ and their wider meaning. What are historical ‘facts’? Is there such a thing? The nature of historical work? Can s/he be neutral and objective? Is objectivity in history writing a value, or not? Can it be achieved or is it a convenient myth? Is history writing a science (in the sense of a natural science) or an art? Is it simply fiction?

Edward Hallet Carr ( )

Charles Percy Snow ( ) Reed Lectures: The Two Cultures (1959) ‘Scientist, social scientists and historians are all engaged in the same study: The study of man and his environment, of the effects of man on his environment and of his environment on man. The object of the study is the same: to increase man’s understanding of, and mastery over, his environment…..The presuppositions and the methods of the physicist, the geologist, the psychologist and the historian differ widely in detail….But historians and physical scientists are united in the fundamental purpose of seeking to explain, and in the fundamental procedure of question and answer.’ (What is History? p. 80)

‘between …. of an untenable theory of history as an objective compilation of facts, of the unqualified primacy of fact over interpretation, and ….of an equally untenable theory of history as the subjective product of the mind of the historian who establishes the facts of history and masters them through the processes of interpretation, between a view of history having the centre of gravity in the past and a view having the centre of gravity in the present (What is History?, p. 29)

Positivism: fr. ‘positif’: in its philosophical sense it means 'imposed on the mind by experience’ August Comte ( ) Knowledge derived from mathematical formula and sensory experience is the exclusive sources of all authoritative knowledge. Therefore valid knowledge can only be found in the knowledge produced by the natural sciences and mathematics.

‘The fact speaks only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context….It is the historian who has decided for his own reason that Cesar’s crossing of that petty stream, the Rubicon, is a fact of history, whereas the crossing of the Rubicon by millions of other people…interest nobody at all.’ (What is History? 11)

‘The past, present, and future are linked together in an endless chain of history.’ (What is History? 129

‘Before you study the historian, study his historical and social environment. The historian, being an individual, is also a product of history and of society: and it is in this twofold light that the student of history has to learn to regard him.’ (What is History? 38)

David Lowenthal 1923

Preservation has deepend our knowledge of the past but dampened creative use of it. Specialists learn more than ever about our central biblical and classical traditions, but most people now lack an informed appreciation of them. Our precursors identified with a unitary antiquity whose fragmented vestiges became models for their own creations. Our own numerous exotic pasts, prized as vestiges, are divested of the iconographic meanings they once embodied. It is not longer the presence of the past that speaks to us, but its pastness. Now a foreign country with a booming tourist trade, the past has undergone the usual consequences of popularity. The more it is appreciated for its own sake, the less real or relevant it becomes. No longer revered or feared, the past is swallowed up by an ever expanding present; we enlarge our sense of the contemporary at the expense of realizing its connection with the past. ‘We are flooded with disposable memoranda from us to ourselves’….but ‘we tragically inept at receiving message from our ancestors’. (p. xvii)

However, faithfully we preserve, however authentically, we restore, however deeply we immerse ourselves in bygone times, life back then was based on way of being and believing incommensurable with our own. The past’s difference is, one of its charms: no one would yearn for it if merely replicated the present. But we cannot help but view and celebrate it through present-day lenses.’ (Lowenthal, p. XVI)

Alun Munslow 1947