‘History is about evidence. It is also about other things: hunches, imagination, interpretation, guesswork. First and foremost, though, comes evidence: no evidence, no history... Nobody, or hardly anyone, created evidence for the convenience of future historians. Had they done so, it would be highly suspect. What ulterior purpose led them to try to influence the future?’ (John Vincent - An Intelligent Person’s Guide to History, 1995)
In Pursuit of truthful history stories
Cambridge Modern History, 1902: ‘Great additions have of late been made to our knowledge of the past; the long conspiracy against the revelation of truth has gradually given way; and competing historians all over the civilised world have been zealous to take advantage of the change.’
Richard J. Evans, 1997: ‘History is an empirical discipline, and it is concerned with the content of knowledge rather than its nature. Through the sources we use, and the methods with which we handle them, we can, if we are very careful and thorough, approach a reconstruction of past reality that may be partial and provisional, and certainly will not be objective, but is nevertheless true. We know, of course, that we will be guided in selecting materials for the stories we tell, and in the way we put these materials together and interpret them, by literary models, by social science theories, by moral and political beliefs, by an aesthetic sense, even by our own unconscious assumptions and desires. It is an illusion to believe otherwise. But the stories we tell will be true stories, even if the truth they tell is our own, and even if other people can and will tell them differently. Anyone who thinks that the truth about the past does not matter has not, perhaps, lived under a regime like that of the Soviet or Eastern bloc Communists where it is systematically distorted and suppressed.'
Historia means - in ancient Greek - learning through research, narration of what is learned. The histor is the one who knows, the expert, the judge. Traditionally, history is an evidence-based practice and the results of historical research are laid down in a narrative account. Nowadays a synthesis of solid research is published in a history book on a special subject or a biography (on a well-known or less well-known historical person) situated in a broader historical context. Sometimes even literary writing styles are used. This has not always been a matter-of-course.
The academic approach of historical research is based on a simple assumption, the foundation of modern science: the dialectic approach. It is summarized in the Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions. ‘A dialectic method of historical and philosophical progress that postulates (1) a beginning proposition called a thesis, (2) a negation of that thesis called the antithesis, and (3) a synthesis whereby the two conflicting ideas are reconciled to form a new proposition. Although this method is commonly referred to as the Hegelian dialectic, Hegel actually attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. (….)’
The consequence of this dialectic approach for historical, evidence-based research: the historian is obliged to start all over again if he or she discovers, during research, that the provisional construction is wrong. The design of a provisional construction (based on found evidence in the primary sources or books written by other historians), a deconstruction and the formulation of a (new) (re)construction thesis are always closely entangled in the practice of the historian before he or she is able to write down the synthesis of research. Some historians never reach the stage of synthesis. They just publish their finds and some considerations.
To publish considerations instead of a synthesis of research in a well-written narrative: sometimes it is the result of a civil war among academic historians. During a "historiographical discourse" in the 20th century, some groups of academic historians tried to bring the conventional craft of historians closer to the social and natural sciences. The "philosophers of history" tried to find new directions in the study of history. The result was damaging for the full practice of historical research. One of the main items of discussion was: is the historian able to discover the "truth" in history? As the answer was no, some historians claimed it was useless to research the past at all. So, a lot of conventional working historians decided to publish academic considerations containing their provisional results of research.
Also another civil war among academic historians made a lot of casualties: during centuries history is used and abused for individual, dynastic and political reasons. By denying the historical truth some critical philosophers of history were helping those who have their own reasons to obstruct the examination of the historical facts by a critical, academically skilled historian.
So, the discussion among historians is closely linked to the present discussion on the "post-truth world". The attitude of a small group of historians opened the gates to (further) manipulation.
There are even more casualties of war. Within the liberal democracies of the modern world the historians have traditionally important duties and social obligations: to educate critical citizens in possession of the vote and to deliver reliable information which is to be used for important social and political debates. Within the Anglo-American world citizens even have an important duty to serve in the jurisdiction (as member of a jury). Historians are important players within education trainings which the Germans describes as Bildung: a critical education which creates citizens in possession of both a personal and cultural maturation which are able to identify themselves with the broader society.
The philosophers of history undermined the liberal, democratic foundations of the western world. History disappeared from the educational curriculum at schools. A lot of people from the younger generations received their rights of vote while becoming an adult, but were only superficially educated in history and therefore don’t understand fully the "why" of their political and social duties.
Some of the comments by philosophers of history made sense. The conventional working historians had to defend themselves. Their arsenal is sometimes out of date, but the outcome of the debate isn't. The conventional working historians were obliged to rethink and refine their skills in relation to working with sources. In the post-war period a lot of historians, trained at university, became journalist or politician after graduating. That process is enduring. The former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (Labour Party) even earned a PhD in history. The historiographical discussion was therefore far from harmless: the professors in history like to train their successors, but most certificated historians are looking for a job outside the university system.
The training in critical thinking during a history education is nowadays more important than the search for historical facts in the archives, but the training in the skills and methods of the academic historian is still important because they are also useful in the analysis of the "facts" spread by internet. For several reasons therefore, Irène Diependaal has collected some important voices of expert historians participating in the discussion about the "end of history".
With In Defence of History Richard J. Evans published in 1997 a controversial book because the historiographical discussion was still going on. Nowadays it is a classic.
This text was original part of the website Hereditas Historiae, also owned by Irène Diependaal. This three-layered website had the possibility to give extensive quotations from selected books. The main purpose in 2017, the heyday of 'post-truth world', was to give an international public some background information to understand some developments within journalism. However, during the nearly ten years it was aired, the section In pursuit of truthful history stories became the best visited part of Hereditas Historiae.
The quotations were taken from:
1. Richard J. Evans, In Defence of History (1997).
2. Harvard Guide to American history, 'Principles of historical criticism' (1954).
3. Pieter Geyl, Use and abuse of history (1955).
4. E.H. Carr, What is History? (1961)
5. G.R. Elton, Practice of History (1967)
6. Marc Ferro, Use and abuse of history (1981)
7. G.R. Elton, Return to the essentials (1991)
8. John Vincent, An Intelligent Person's Guide to History (1995, expanded in 1996)
9. George Iggers, Historiography in the 20th Century. From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodernism in perspective (1997)
10. Michael Bentley, Modern Historiography (1999)
11. John H. Arnold, History. A Very Short Introduction. Chapter 7. The telling of truth (2000)
12. Alun Munslow, The Routledge Companion to Historical Studies (2000). Lemma: 'Truth'.
13. George Iggers, A Retrospect (2005).
14. C. Behan McCullagh, The Logic of History. Putting Postmodernism in perspective (2004)
15. John Tosh, Why History Matters (2008)
16. Jeremy Black, Clio's Battles. Historiography in Practice (2016)
17. An interview published in the Washington Post: Ishaan Tharoor, 'Fukuyama fears for democracy's future', 9 February 2017.
The most appreciated text was the Harvard Guide. Therefore quotations from this nowadays classic book is transferred to this website.
Other popular pages: quotations from books by E.H. Carr, G.R. Elton, Richard Evans, Pieter Geyl and John Vincent.
On Hereditas Historiae was also space for the troubled history of John Vincent's An Intelligent Person's Guide to History. John Vincent was alive in 2017, but died in 2021. Controversial during life, John Vincent was honoured after his death by his employer, the University of Bristol (UK). Professor Ronald Hutton: 'He arrived here at the opening of the '70s from a fellowship at Peterhouse, Cambridge, having been educated at that university and before then at Bedales School; his parents were middle-class Mancunian intellectuals. He was appointed to Bristol’s chair in modern history, having established himself as a prominent expert in Victorian politics, and a socialist thinker. In the rest of the decade he secured an enduringly happy family life, marrying a former student and having a son, and shifted his politics to become a leading Thatcherite. During the 1980s he was entertained at 10 Downing Street and contributed a weekly column to Britain’s then best-selling and brashest newspaper, The Sun, as well as engaging in other journalism. This stance made him enemies on the left, and in 1986 his lectures were attacked by protestors, resulting in two full-scale street riots. The impact on him, and his family, forced his withdrawal from politics back into scholarship, producing a sparkling book on the nature of history and then settling into the valuable and self-effacing work of editing the diaries of Victorian aristocrats.' Ronald Hutton: 'I knew him as an erratically brilliant, highly original, unworldly, unpredictable, vulnerable, and wayward man, savagely rebarbative to opponents, passionately loyal and grateful to friends, devoted to students, and constantly undermined by the epilepsy which caused his early retirement in 1997.'
In Irène Diependaal’s personal experience: John Vincent was a friendly, helpful and correct colleague.
The quotation from The Cambridge Modern History is taken from the “Preface” of volume I of the The Cambridge Modern History, 1902. The quotation from Richard J. Evans is taken from: In Defence of History (1997). The quotation from the Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions is retrieved from the website of the publisher (Springer). It was retrieved on 28 February 2017.
