It’s long been believed by the public that Marie Antoinette said the famous (or rather, infamous) line: “Let them eat cakes.” Modern historians have questioned the authenticity of this claim, and it is not at all certain that she actually said it – the debate is still ongoing. Even for those of us who do question this account, though, the claim that she said it is still a part of the history. This is because it’s been told for so long that generations of schoolchildren have grown up with the story. Therefore, the issue of whether it happened must still be grappled with, whenever the history is taught to each succeeding generation. It is part of what historians call the “historiography” of Marie Antoinette. This basically means how the story has been told ever since the original events happened – both by academics, and by popular sources. I should note that not all of these retellings have been so bad.
Marie Antoinette
Other disciplines offer classes in the history of their subject (and so does history)
But first, a definition of historiography: Many university departments of science offer a class in the “history of science.” Many university departments of philosophy offer a class in the “history of philosophy.” Many university departments of economics offer a class in the “history of economic thought.” And many university departments of political science offer a class in the “history of political thought.” In a similar way, many university departments of history offer a class in “historiography.” This includes the “history of history,” the aspect of the topic that I will treat here. This includes the history of the academic discipline of “history.” It also includes the history of various popular media about the past. It also includes an examination of methodology, and of the philosophy of history. All of this tends to be included under the term “historiography.” But, again, I will be focusing here on this one aspect of this word: the “history of history.” For example, the discipline of history was founded in Ancient Greece, by Herodotus and Thucydides. (I’m planning to discuss this part more in some future posts.)
A 1953 film adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”
Spartacus, a 1960 movie about the Roman Empire
The broad scope of historiography, which encompasses both truths and myths
This word “historiography” encompasses both truths and myths – both facts and fiction. It is a standard subject for the academic presentation of any history, from Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome to World War II and the Vietnam War. For the topic of Ancient Rome, for instance, there is everything from the Shakespeare play “Julius Caesar” (written in the sixteenth century) to the movie “Spartacus” in the twentieth century. Or, for the topic of Pearl Harbor, there is the 1970 movie “Tora! Tora! Tora!” (which is exceptionally accurate), and there is the 2001 Ben Affleck movie “Pearl Harbor” (which is somewhat less than accurate) – not to mention countless other relevant films, books, and documentaries. Historians are often surprisingly conversant with popular media about history, from historical fiction in literature to historical movies from Hollywood. In particular, they are often conversant with popular media about their own historical specialties, such as a particular culture or period within history. That being said, though, historians do not always agree with this popular media – although, sometimes, they do. Historians often praise the movies that influenced their own development as enthusiastic students of history.
“Tora! Tora! Tora!,” a 1970 movie about Pearl Harbor
Even regular history classes will sometimes teach the relevant historiography
All of these things – whether books, movies, or documentaries – are a part of the history, even when the claims presented are not sufficiently trustworthy. Thus, many a college history class will spend at least some of its time on the “historiography” of its subject – whether it be how Greek philosophers were perceived in medieval Europe, for instance; or how the American Civil War was depicted in now-controversial movies like “The Birth of a Nation” and “Gone with the Wind.” These movies can offend even the right wing today. Historiography grapples with myths like the “Lost Cause” interpretation of the Civil War, and challenges various inaccurate versions of history. In a gentler way, it can note goofs in popular history movies, or praise the ones that actually get most of the details right. It can also discuss how past media influenced the public’s perception of a topic. For example, historiographers can tell us how Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” influenced the public perception of the Napoleonic Wars – and of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in particular. In fairness to these popular media, sometimes historical books and movies have to condense things in the interest of time and clarity. Historical novels, and fictional Hollywood movies, often add in fictional characters – who are meant to represent various real people from history. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with this technique. Sometimes these media can actually help us to get closer to the truth, than a recitation of the facts alone would do. In this, a written history is considered to be different from a novel. A written history sticks to the known “facts” about a subject – or, at least, claims to do so. But even these written histories will sometimes try to uncover the emotions associated with a subject, like how people felt at the time. Ken Burns once referred to this as “emotional archeology,” and it’s a good technique. It can certainly add to the dramatic power of a story, as many of his films show.
A 1956 film adaptation of Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”
Each generation writes its own history, and interprets and re-interprets the past for itself
At other times, historians will examine how a particular historical figure was influenced by prior historical cultures and events. For example, they might discuss how the Founding Fathers were avid readers of the Ancient Greeks and Romans (as I show here). They might show that Abraham Lincoln once read a biography of George Washington, “The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin,” and Blackstone’s “Commentaries.” They may debate whether the Iroquois Confederacy actually influenced the Constitution (more about that here). Like other areas of history, historiography can sometimes be charged with controversy. Historians do not always agree among themselves about the proper interpretation of a topic. And political issues from racism to imperialism (real and alleged) can influence how a historical topic is viewed today. It is said that each generation writes its own history. If so, then we see this today in the occasional censorship of some offensive material (like certain offensive words) from history. The extent to which such censorship is valid … would be a better topic for another post. But, either way, it shows us how history is both interpreted and re-interpreted, again and again, by each succeeding generation. In the case of today, it is made more “politically correct,” and less offensive to certain minority groups.
Title page of “The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin”
How professional history is sometimes influenced by the desire to say something new
Sometimes historiography is influenced by the desire of professional historians to say something new. That is, they want to say something “innovative,” so that they can get articles published in a journal – thus getting a coveted graduate degree in the process. Some of these perspectives really are innovative, while others may instead be more of a step backwards. Many of these articles sit around in an obscure journal written for a niche audience, but still have a way of influencing many others in the surrounding societies. Given enough time, ideas in academia usually seem to find their way into the general public. Ideas from college history departments are often the same way. Agendas sometimes seem to be pushed more from certain political reasons, than from an honest evaluation of the facts. Racist pseudoscience from some previous decades is a classic example of this. That is, these studies were openly racist against minorities. But when these studies came out of universities, people still believed them, because they wrongfully perceived the professors to be “smarter” than everybody else. And, more to the point, they wanted these things to be true. Thus, one has to take some academic trends (past and present) with a grain of salt, when grappling with politically charged issues. Historiographers often grapple with academic nonsense from previous generations. But they also look at what these interpretations tell us about the author’s own time. And, at times, they actually agree with the interpretations.
Edward Gibbon, an eighteenth-century British historian of the Roman Empire
The lens through which we today tell the history … tells us something about ourselves
In so many ways, the lens through which we today tell the history … tells us something about ourselves, in both good and bad ways. Therefore (and significantly), historiography is a way of grappling with our individual and collective identities, and how it is influenced by our shared memory of the past. It will not always be correct, but it will continue to influence public perceptions for years to come. And it will continue to tell us who we are as a people.
Disclosure: I am an Amazon affiliate marketer, and can sometimes make money when you buy the product using the link(s) above.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment