Which books are best if I want to find out the history of History

[Crowbar_of_Irony_3]

Hi,

I am not trying to be funny here; I am curious as to the history of recording history itself, across cultures and countries. How did ‘historians’ come about? Who are the notable historians? At which point in time comes the view that history must be “credible”? There are the sort of questions lingering.

Thanks!

**Edit:**Fixed some typo

[Baldwin]

What you want are books in the field of Historiography.

I’ll start you off with Practicing History: Selected Essays, by Barbara Tuchman.

[633squadron]

[QUOTE=CrazyChop]
Hi,

I am not trying to be funny here; I am curious as to the history of recording history itself, across cultures and countries. How did ‘historians’ come about? Who are the notable historians? At which point in time comes the view that history must be “credible”? There are the sort of questions lingering.

Thanks!

**Edit:**Fixed some typo
[/QUOTE]

I second Barbara Tuchman, who was not only herself a fine historian, but chose to examine history and historians for the “common people”.

Her book, The March of Folly, re-cites famous historians over time as they come to grips with the perverse stupidity of people across the ages. In that sense, it’s a review of historians as well as history.

Historians come from storytelling, and storytelling comes from human consciousness and human curiosity. Why is the world this way? Why do we die? Who controls our lives, our food, our joys and sorrows? Why do people fight?

In some sense storytelling has always been credible, in the sense that most storytellers believed that their stories were the truth. Storytelling diverged into art and history when some storytellers deliberately embellished the truth to serve art, while others deliberately sought eyewitness confirmation.

Most Western historians identify Thucydides as the first true “scientific” historian (as Wikipedia calls him) who limited himself strictly to the truth based on eyewitness accounts.

This definition automatically accepts Herodotus and even Homer as historians. Homer (whatever he, she, or they were) is based in fact, and purports to be history, but can’t be called that by modern standards since it involves the influence of the gods. Herodotus is much closer to Thucydides, but Herodotus also includes stories that are clearly myths.

In my humble opinion, no history is unambiguously and completely true. All historians have biases. Some try to eliminate them as much as they can. Others, even those of great repute, are unrepentant about their biases.

Remember, even some parts of science depend on history. Geology, biology, and much of astronomy depend on hypotheses that are difficult or impossible to test in the same way that physics and chemistry can be tested. Science and scientific history, though, accept the disproving of hypotheses through tests.

[APB]

An even better place to start would be John Burrow’s recent A History of Histories (UK edition; US edition).

[Odesio]

A nice little primer would be History: A Very Short Introduction by John H. Arnold. It’s published by Oxford University Press and it’s a part of their Very Short Introduction series that includes little 100 page booklets covering topics such as Islam, cryptography, quantum theory, and many others.

Marc

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=Baldwin]
What you want are books in the field of Historiography.
[/QUOTE]
I learned a new thing today. Thanks!

(Are there any books on the history of Historiography?)

[Mark_Ryle]

A book I am looking forward to reading is Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud – American History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis and Goodman by Peter Charles Hoffer. Some chapter titles:

Introduction: Two-Faced History
Part I: Facts and Fictions
Ch 1 The Rise of Consensus History
Ch 2 Professions of History
Ch 3 The New History and Its Promoters
Part II: Fraud
Ch 5 Fabrication: The Case of Michael Bellesiles
Ch 6 Plagiarism: The Case of Steven Ambrose
Ch 7 Fabrication: The Case of Joseph Ellis
Ch 8 History as “Fair Game”
Conclusion: The Future of the Past

Here’s a quote from a Booknotes interview (Brian Lamb) with the author:

And they [Amborse, Ellis, Bellesiles] were pilloried, made their apologies, but the attack kept on going. And you know, historians would do, you know, media bites, say this, say that, but no one had really gone into the cases, tried to find out what had happened, had analyzed the text the way historians always analyze text, the way that historians always analyze primary sources and documents. So those are the stories.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=633squadron]
In my humble opinion, no history is unambiguously and completely true. All historians have biases. Some try to eliminate them as much as they can. Others, even those of great repute, are unrepentant about their biases.

[/QUOTE]

Note that many historians, while personally, perhaps, unbiased, were forced to write in a manner which reflected the expectations (and thus, biases) of their respective patrons. Then, as now, there wasn’t much money in history.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Note that many historians, while personally, perhaps, unbiased, were forced to write in a manner which reflected the expectations (and thus, biases) of their respective patrons. Then, as now, there wasn’t much money in history.
[/QUOTE]

Cite?

[greatshakes]

A really good resource is to look up History in the Encyclopedia Britannica. There is a 20 or more page article in there on History, and gives a nice brief of the topic.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]

You want a cite for the concept that ancient and medieval historians did not enjoy the benefit of free speech? Or that they wrote to please their patrons?

The Roman Empire: History, Culture & Legacy of Ancient Rome

By examining the works of the Golden age, such as the Aeneid, poems of Horace, and the omitted works of Livy, the effect of Augustan auctoritas can clearly be seen. Augustus made a deliberate and successful attempt to shift the focus of Roman literature to the unflagging support of his imperial propaganda. Virgil exemplified this trend when he created the figurehead of the Augustan age—the revised Aeneas and Livy demonstrated what must have been a widespread fear of the effect auctoritas might have upon his literature. This evidence highlights the conscious, pervasive influence Augustus asserted, using his power to influence the people of Rome and to create an age of literature in his own image. Auctoritas, while influencing literature throughout Roman history by way of patron-client relationships, achieved its maturity when Augustus used it to compel the literary minds of his time to further his political agenda.

William of Malmesbury

In fulfilment of this idea, William produced around AD 1120 his first edition of the Gesta regum anglorum (Deeds of the English kings) which spanned from AD 449-1120. He later edited and expanded it up to the year 1127, releasing a second edition dedicated to Earl Robert of Gloucester. This second edition of the Gesta regum anglorum is now considered by modern scholars to be one of the great histories of England. William’s first edition of the Gesta regum anglorum was followed by the Gesta pontificum anglorum (Deeds of the English Bishops) in 1125.

Around this time, William formed an acquaintance with Bishop Roger of Salisbury, who had a castle at Malmesbury. It is possible that this acquaintance, coupled with the positive reception of his Gesta regum earned him the offered position of Abbot of Malmesbury Abbey in 1140.

Greek in a Cold Climate

The Aeneid Book VIII Summary and Analysis

Many of Virgil’s critics argue that the Aeneid is little more than a giant piece of propaganda intended primarily to please his patron, Caesar Augustus.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
You want a cite for the concept that ancient and medieval historians did not enjoy the benefit of free speech? Or that they wrote to please their patrons?
[/QUOTE]

You didn’t mention a time period for your assertion. I was concerned that the thread so far had mostly concentrated on American historians, at least the ones mentioned by name, and while modern historians certainly have their biases, probably few are slanted to their patrons. (Those working in think tanks of particular political persuasions may be exceptions.) I wanted to ensure that you were speaking of historians of a different era and different mindset. You do seem to be, and I’m glad to hear that.

[Sage_Rat]

[QUOTE=CrazyChop]
**Edit:**Fixed some typo
[/QUOTE]

snerk

[Sage_Rat]

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I learned a new thing today. Thanks!

(Are there any books on the history of Historiography?)
[/QUOTE]

Historiography | References

[Crowbar_of_Irony_3]

Thanks a lot for the recommends; I will definitely check out the library for those books.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
You didn’t mention a time period for your assertion. I was concerned that the thread so far had mostly concentrated on American historians, at least the ones mentioned by name, and while modern historians certainly have their biases, probably few are slanted to their patrons. (Those working in think tanks of particular political persuasions may be exceptions.) I wanted to ensure that you were speaking of historians of a different era and different mindset. You do seem to be, and I’m glad to hear that.
[/QUOTE]

Gotcha. When I think of history I usually think of the ancient world and work my way forward.