posted 03 September 2007 18:57 EDT (US)
I've needed to get this off my chest a long time. Really, the title says it all: I hate modern historiography. Hate it, hate it, hate it. Why? I'm so glad you asked!
1. Pathological hatred of chronological history.
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to study history (I said broadly speaking, I meant broadly speaking, and I may not be using the commonly accepted terms): Thematic and chronological. Thematic history studies general themes of certain eras rather than the actual events. For example, a thematic historian of the Song Dynasty in China wouldn't name a single emperor, but would go in depth to discuss the prominence of the gentry class, and the effect of the examination system. A chronological historian is one who focuses on events and what actually happened. Modern historians believe that chronological history isn’t even worth the saliva it takes to spit on it. This, clearly, is stupid. In fact, I would rather read a purely chronological than a purely thematic history, because themes can be inferred. Events can't. The best is embodied in Gwyn Jones' "History of the Vikings", which intelligently uses both thematic and chronological history.
2. Pathological hatred of historical sources
I will be the first to admit that historical sources (eg, Herodotus) can be problematic. That does not mean they are worthless: Far from it. When intelligently analyzed, they are invaluable. However, the modern historian thinks that if the ancient sources put in an anecdote, or flesh out a character in some way, it must be false. For example, many modern historians don't believe that when Harald Fairhair came to the throne, he pledged that he would not shave his hair until he became lord of Norway. It is a story that is interesting, and shows several aspects of his character: His ambition, his arrogance, his flair for the dramatic. Also, because he was later dubbed “Fairhair”, but several of his skalds during the Unification called him “Tanglehair”, it is not only possible, but probable. Yet, because it is well told, modern historians don’t believe it.
3. Snubbing of certain areas of history
Mainly, military history. The modern historian spits on military history, because it is the matter of immature children, and also because people that aren’t historians might actually find it interesting. There are also some people who think that studying military history in some way glorifies wars. This is stupid. Professor Garret Fagin said it well when he said that studying wars without mentioning battles is like studying theology without mentioning God. I do not think that military history is greater import that the other areas, but it is at least somewhat important to know what, say, the Battle of Yorktown was. Political history is also losing ground to economic history, and the aforementioned chronological history is losing ground.
4. Footnotes
Yes, we understand that you did a lot of research. That doesn’t mean you have to source every single goddamned statement.
My hatred is vast, but not particularly broad. These four pretty much sum it up. Also, I know I am generalizing. I also don’t care: I don’t want to make a topic saying “I find certain trends in modern historiography misguided and foolish”.
Discuss.
"That which we call a nose can still smell!"
-Reduced Shakespeare Company
"Abroad, French transit workers attempt to end a strike, only to discover that they have forgotten how to operate the trains. Everybody enjoys a hearty laugh and returns to the café." -Dave Barry
1. Pathological hatred of chronological history.
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to study history (I said broadly speaking, I meant broadly speaking, and I may not be using the commonly accepted terms): Thematic and chronological. Thematic history studies general themes of certain eras rather than the actual events. For example, a thematic historian of the Song Dynasty in China wouldn't name a single emperor, but would go in depth to discuss the prominence of the gentry class, and the effect of the examination system. A chronological historian is one who focuses on events and what actually happened. Modern historians believe that chronological history isn’t even worth the saliva it takes to spit on it. This, clearly, is stupid. In fact, I would rather read a purely chronological than a purely thematic history, because themes can be inferred. Events can't. The best is embodied in Gwyn Jones' "History of the Vikings", which intelligently uses both thematic and chronological history.
2. Pathological hatred of historical sources
I will be the first to admit that historical sources (eg, Herodotus) can be problematic. That does not mean they are worthless: Far from it. When intelligently analyzed, they are invaluable. However, the modern historian thinks that if the ancient sources put in an anecdote, or flesh out a character in some way, it must be false. For example, many modern historians don't believe that when Harald Fairhair came to the throne, he pledged that he would not shave his hair until he became lord of Norway. It is a story that is interesting, and shows several aspects of his character: His ambition, his arrogance, his flair for the dramatic. Also, because he was later dubbed “Fairhair”, but several of his skalds during the Unification called him “Tanglehair”, it is not only possible, but probable. Yet, because it is well told, modern historians don’t believe it.
3. Snubbing of certain areas of history
Mainly, military history. The modern historian spits on military history, because it is the matter of immature children, and also because people that aren’t historians might actually find it interesting. There are also some people who think that studying military history in some way glorifies wars. This is stupid. Professor Garret Fagin said it well when he said that studying wars without mentioning battles is like studying theology without mentioning God. I do not think that military history is greater import that the other areas, but it is at least somewhat important to know what, say, the Battle of Yorktown was. Political history is also losing ground to economic history, and the aforementioned chronological history is losing ground.
4. Footnotes
Yes, we understand that you did a lot of research. That doesn’t mean you have to source every single goddamned statement.
My hatred is vast, but not particularly broad. These four pretty much sum it up. Also, I know I am generalizing. I also don’t care: I don’t want to make a topic saying “I find certain trends in modern historiography misguided and foolish”.
Discuss.
"That which we call a nose can still smell!"
-Reduced Shakespeare Company
"Abroad, French transit workers attempt to end a strike, only to discover that they have forgotten how to operate the trains. Everybody enjoys a hearty laugh and returns to the café." -Dave Barry
), but overall I found it very valueable. The footnotes did get very tedious and that's why I think endnotes should be mandatory because footnotes take up a lot of damn space and what if you didn't want to read it? With endnotes, you can just venture to the back and check it out without being obligated to read 3/4 of a page of a footnote.
