Our Historians

[The Augusta]

Our Kosmo wrote:

 

Old School historians have a great way to provide data and broader views. For a specific detail and for informed readers I think the narrow focus and better data tip the advantage for the contemporary ones.

 

This quote, on the Review thread for Scullard's History of Rome, not to mention several comments made by MPC and others throughout various threads, has prompted me to ask for a discussion on the historians as opposed to the primary sources. Kosmo has given us a great point to start off with, in that he has contrasted the broader, more pragmatic views of the 'old school' with the narrower focus of the latest scholarship. While I am not in agreement with Kosmo that such a narrow focus is a legitimate tool for history, I would welcome a debate on the various merits or shortcomings (as we see them, of course) of the various 'giants' of Roman history. Mommsen, Syme, Scullard etc. versus Gruen, Millar etc.

 

I don't want to tie us to any particular point - the quote from Kosmo was purely to illustrate one of the things that contrast between the two schools - but I chose it because Kosmo sums up why he prefers the 'new school' or more contemporary historians. Therefore, I am not setting a single point for the discussion, but would rather leave it open-ended to see where our thoughts and debates take us. We will no doubt begin in quite a general manner and end up arguing the toss over one or two points, as we always do, but that is all to the good. We may discuss such things as whether the reading of a more contemporary historian has changed our former stance on a certain period or thesis - Cato, in another thread, admitted this very thing about Ronald Syme. For my part, I have yet to be persuaded away from Syme's 'oligarchial theory'. This is the sort of thing we could perhaps cover. But as I say, I do not want to tie us to one topic - please, all plunge in and raise any point you wish.

[Ursus]

Peter Heather, author of "Fall of the Roman Empire," one of the "New School" historians, offered a comment in his introduction that still lives with me.

 

How to interpret history is of course one of the big questions of academia. Every generation views history through its own lenses, and if a particular world view is in vogue everything tends to be subordinated to that view. In the 18th century European nationalism and imperialism colored perceptions of archeology and cultural studies. Later, Marx and Freud was all the rage. In the last half of the 20th century and until very recently, “postmodernism” was the orthodoxy. The very idea that people may be held hostage to their subjective analysis is of course a legacy of postmodern studies.

 

Peter Heather offers what I consider the best option to analyzing data: take the jurist’s approach. Let’s get all the different views on the table. Let’s then keep in mind most people have an agenda (deliberate or not) that may color their testimony. After sifting through all the evidence, let’s then try to form the most objective picture we can get and render a verdict.

 

Now granted Peter Heather is not himself free from his own agenda. He wants, like any academic, to make a name for himself, and he does so by offering a somewhat revisionist assessment of the Late Empire (Rome’s internal vices were overstated, the empire fell because of barbarians). But Heather at least offers a lot of evidence for his views, and regardless I find the central thrust of his approach to history sound.

 

When we look at the primary sources, we do have to be somewhat conscious of their agendas. Tacitus’ moralizing anti-imperial worldview means we have to take some of his “history” with a grain of salt. When pagans slander Christians, or when Christians slander Pagans, we again have to allow for exaggeration. Livy’s histories of early Rome is colored by local legends Etc., ad naseum.

 

I’d say the primary sources have to be weighed against each other where they contradict, and then collectively weighed against the archaeological background. Once all the evidence is presented, one can begin to get an objective data.

 

Historians like Scullard seem to do this well without themselves having an obvious axe to grind. And their prose is mercifully to the point. That is why I enjoy them.

 

Most of the New School historians are all too aware of the biases of the primary sources, but they merely seek to replace those biases with whatever own particular axe they have to grind. The language of modern academia is also plagued with ridiculous jargon.

 

 

All in all I find the Old School approach to be the most relatively objective. When I first was interested in Roman history, I went to my small and impoverished local library, which could not afford newer books. Most of their texts on Roman history were written in first half of the 20th century. But aside from a general Judeo-Christian bias against “weird” pagan religions, they seemed straightforward enough and I devoured them.

[M. Porcius Cato]

As I indicated in my earlier comments, I'm not a fan of Scullard's history, which I consider to be wrong, but what I find truly objectionable is not Scullard's history but the reactionary historical attitude "If it sounds familiar, it must be right." Whether Ursus mean to communicate this attitude, I don't know. He does, however, raise a broader issue of "revisionism vs traditionalism." As I'll explain, I think the more apt description is "revisionism versus anti-revisionism", and in my view, anti-revisionism in Roman history (or any field) is an intellectually indefensible approach.

 

First, let's be clear that traditionalism has no actual intellectual content for the simple fact that traditions endlessly change. Look at the many histories of the Roman republic: which one can be picked out as "the traditional view"? The history of Lucan? of Dio Cassius? Machiavelli? Montesquieu? Mommsen? Gelzer and Syme? Brunt and Scullard? Meier? Gruen? Millar? For a true traditionalist, this list should be an embarrassment--what is "revisionist" in one generation becomes "traditional" in the next. Picking out any of these, therefore, as "traditional" is completely arbitrary. Thus, the traditionalist approach amounts to, "the view that I started with (from my local library) is the true traditional view, the true Old School; all the other Old Schools were wrong, and all the New Schools--i.e., all the ones I will encounter in the future--are just revisionist." This attitude is exactly analogous to the Biblical Literalist who wants to take his familiar set of Gospels (and no others) as the word of God. It's a completely arbitrary position, and it's a recipe for a closed mind.

 

Second, if traditionalism has no actual intellectual content (i.e., there is no true "traditional view"), what the traditionalist really is bringing to the table is simply the anti-revisionist slogan, "Don't change your mind about history." If any adult wants to argue for this, I really have nothing to say, except, "you aren't merely an amateur, you're a closed-minded fool." (To be clear, this is NOT what Ursus argued, but I want my opinion on this stated for the record.) Possibly, there are some children who take this view: you can simply point out to them that ancient histories are written on the basis of the ancient texts, artifacts, and context in which these are discovered; since new texts and artifacts are continually being discovered, our histories are constantly being updated.

 

Third, the merits of revisionism are not limited to updating specific facts (e.g., the prevalence of roof tiles during the fourth and fifth centuries). The merits of revisionism lie in their calling attention to assumptions that have no firm basis in fact. Indeed, from the slim catalogue of facts that we have about the ancient world, the potential reconstructions are nearly infinite, and historians so far have only picked out a handful of the reconstructions that are consistent with these facts. Considering alternative hypotheses, therefore, is absolutely essential.

 

To take just one example. For many years, we knew that foreign kings depended on the services of Roman statesmen, to whom they returned favors. Also, we have Cicero recording that Romulus "had the common people enrolled as clients to the leading men" (Rep. 2.16). Is there a connection between these two facts? Maybe, maybe not. Fustel de Coulanges thought so, and he put forward the revisionist opinion that the leading men of Rome were engaged in a patron-client relationship with voters. This leap of faith is now taught as self-evident fact in undergraduate classes on Roman society, whereas the exact opposite opinion is freely exchanged in graduate classes and Roman history journals, where no one could put forward the de Coulanges hypothesis without considerable discussion of the counter-arguments. What has emerged from this debate has been fresh inquiry into the whole realm of social relationships in the republic, and the wider idea of political culture, where informal practices yield insights into how ordinary people thought about their rights and roles in the state.

 

Although there is no true "Old School" and there are true benefits to revisionism, I hasten to add that old historians are worth reading too. Sometimes (though not always), the old histories are fun to read for their stylistic flourishes (Gibbon springs to mind), for their politically incorrect cluelessness about women and non-Western cultures, and for their cranky moralizing and sincere hero-worship. These minor virtues help to smooth the way as the reader gags through long, pretentious, untranslated passages of Greek and Latin, and they distract one from the old authors' utter ignorance of anything outside the straight-jacket of the liberal arts. As I say, they have some minor virtues.

 

As history, however, I prefer to read something I've not already heard 20 times before (call me crazy). I prefer to take a new perspective on familiar facts, to learn new facts I've not encountered before, and with these two conditions met, the more bracing the revisionism the better.

[M. Porcius Cato]

(BTW, I completely agree with Ursus about Peter Heather, and I think the jurist approach to ancient history is correct.)

[The Augusta]

(BTW, I completely agree with Ursus about Peter Heather, and I think the jurist approach to ancient history is correct.)

 

Two excellent posts - thank you gentlemen. Although, initially, you confused me, Cato by posting the above quoted comment after making a very good case for 'revisionism', I do see that the 'jurist' approach and the 'revisionist' approach need not be mutually exclusive. When I came to undergraduate history I was taught by a man who employed the methods Ursus outlines. Now, am I right or wrong in saying that this approach is what we can call the 'empiricist' approach? If not, then I have been labouring under a misapprehension for some years, as I've always considered myself to be such an 'empiricist'. We cannot simply take any ancient source at face value without examining its own provenance, etc. But I am also in agreement with Cato that it is our own age that informs our perceptions of what we consider to be bias or prejudice. I agree, too, that not to read modern scholarship shows a closed mind. Although I am still to be severed from my 'Roman oligarchy' theory as set out by Syme, I am at this very moment awaiting delivery of Millar's 'The Crowd in the Roman Republic', whose central thesis is said, in the synopsis, to challenge such views. That is precisely why I want to read it, to see if Millar sheds any new light on recently produced evidence or offers perhaps neglected contemporary evidence that was not used by Syme, and I will hope to make up my own mind when comparing the two historians.

 

I have never held the view that 'revisionism' is a negative thing: in fact, every new generation of historians are, by very definition, 'revisionists'. On a personal level, I think I was born to this! When first hearing at high school about the Persian King Xerxes, for instance, I can remember my first thought was: 'But was he really that bad? Who is telling us this, and why?'. I was reminded of the very thing today when I began to read my latest book-through-the-door: 'Ancient Persia' by Joseph Wiesehoffer. There was a chapter dealing with this very point: the traditionalist views of Cyrus (wonderful) and Xerxes (rat-bag!). With the discovery of more inscriptions and other arcaheological findings in Iran in the last 20 years, historians are having to revise this picture of the two kings, and this may well lead to a reassessment of the characters of each, and perhaps their place in history as opposed to their place in folklore. I am only just beginning my in-depth study of this civilisation that has always fascinated me (almost as much as Rome), so I am keeping an open mind - which is all any of us can do.

 

However, I am less convinced by the historian Suzanne Dixon - who does have the 'jurist' approach that we all seem to admire. On slogging through her 'Reading Roman Women' (and believe me, it's a hard slog) I find I am admiring her method, but feeling totally disatisfied by her lack of conclusions. In fact, Dixon's central argument seems to be that our sources can tell us nothing at all about Roman women in any helpful way! So she has now adopted an approach to find 'what isn't there', i.e. what is NOT said about women in a source is more enlightening that what is. I'm not sure I can agree with this at all. Of course, just because we have no evidence that there were women farmers, for instance (one of her own examples), does not mean that there weren't any. Fine. But where will we find evidence to say that there were, before we can draw any conclusion at all? And Dixon is becoming a highly respected scholar in the field. But I suppose, her reluctance to draw conclusions is better than applying a half-baked theory. Then again - her feminine stance is colouring her judgement (IMHO) about the men who produced the sources in the first place. Its a vicious circle.

 

I suppose that any historian, just like we enthusiasts and students, is a victim and product of his or her own society and its mores. Syme wrote amid the growth of the European fascist regimes, for instance. Today's scholars live in a world of tolerance and political correctness, that must naturally inform their own perceptions when reading the ancient sources. Can any historian totally suspend the notion of 'self'? Ideally, I suppose, they should, but whether or not it is possible, I am less than sure.

[Gaius Octavius]

In my opinion, no one, but no one, ancient or modern, writes without an agenda or a bias. Facts are misinterpreted - even today. The interpretations themselves cannot escape bias. Citing names and theories does not prove one correct and the other a "fool". New 'facts' will soon appear, seemingly making older statements inaccurate. Newer and older histories, along with their adherents, command respect and not denigration.

[M. Porcius Cato]

When I came to undergraduate history I was taught by a man who employed the methods Ursus outlines. Now, am I right or wrong in saying that this approach is what we can call the 'empiricist' approach?

That seems like a fine description to me, but I think your examples and others point to the wide variation that it admits.

 

But I am also in agreement with Cato that it is our own age that informs our perceptions of what we consider to be bias or prejudice.

Actually, I didn't claim this. I claimed that our own age informs what we consider to be traditionalist versus revisionist. It's possible that ancient history has been getting progressively closer to the truth since the day of Dio Cassius. If so, historians have becoming progressively less biased. Yet even under such a scenario, the views considered traditional vs revisionist would be constantly changing, even if while the bias would be progressively less.

 

I have never held the view that 'revisionism' is a negative thing: in fact, every new generation of historians are, by very definition, 'revisionists'.

That, in a nutshell, was my first argument, and I'm very glad to see you're in agreement.

 

However, I am less convinced by the historian Suzanne Dixon - who does have the 'jurist' approach that we all seem to admire. On slogging through her 'Reading Roman Women' (and believe me, it's a hard slog) I find I am admiring her method, but feeling totally disatisfied by her lack of conclusions. In fact, Dixon's central argument seems to be that our sources can tell us nothing at all about Roman women in any helpful way!

I think this is a telling example. The approach to history that aims not to enlighten but to bemoan our darkness is sometimes called 'critical' history. This is a very different enterprise than the one that Peter Heather, Nathan Rosenstein, Keith Hopkins, and others have entered. These latter historians attempt to persuade us of a new perspective or explanation; they don't just pick-pick-pick for nothing. I'm no fan of 'critical' scholarship (as I'm using the term here), and since I think you're right that it would logically fall under the same umbrella as 'empiricist' scholarship, I think there should be a novel term for scholarship that seeks to summon new evidence and new analyses to advance a new conclusion. For me, that's the essence of revisionism, properly understood.

 

I suppose that any historian, just like we enthusiasts and students, is a victim and product of his or her own society and its mores. Syme wrote amid the growth of the European fascist regimes, for instance. Today's scholars live in a world of tolerance and political correctness, that must naturally inform their own perceptions when reading the ancient sources. Can any historian totally suspend the notion of 'self'? Ideally, I suppose, they should, but whether or not it is possible, I am less than sure.

 

Actually--and here I strongly depart from GO--I don't think the suspension of the self is a desirable thing in scholarship. What is needed is objectivity--that is, sticking to the facts--not neutrality, which is refusing to advance any particular thesis. To adopt neutrality, the historian doesn't need to know anything; to adopt an objective and new thesis, the historian must be brilliant, but not selfless. Moreover, I'm thrilled we have an ancient history written from the perspective of one who lived under the threat of fascism! It tells us about that age, as well as bringing attention to neglected aspects of ancient history. There are many historians whose perspective on ancient history is tremendously valuable precisely because they are not selfless, including Tacitus (pro-senate), Macchiavelli (pro-republican, if read properly), Gibbon (pro-enlightenment), and so on. Today's historians--who can write while gazing at the ruins of the Berlin Wall--may provide yet another unique perspective. As far as I'm concerned, the more the self is put into history, the better.

 

I'd also point out that selfless history isn't an unattainable goal. If you want an example, look at Crawford's (1974) two-volume, Roman republican coinage. I'll wake you before you finish, I promise.

[Ursus]

I think what I object to is revisionism for revision sakes. Either trying to distort history to conform to some pre-conceived socio-political agenda, or else just cynically trying to make a name for oneself by being different. I witnessed both during my four years of college, and it left me with a deep suspicion of some of the creatures who live in the ivory tower.

 

If however piling evidence suggests a previous notion is simply wrong, then so be it. "Revision" is perhaps better termed "correction" in such instances. I again have to mention Peter Heather, whose Anti-Gibbons scholarship interested me in the Late Empire.

 

As Cato alluded to in another thread a while ago, the academic world is not quite as entrenched in the Post-Marxist leftist deconstructionist revisionism it used to be. I see revisionism taking other forms, though. Celtic Nationalism and New Age fantasy both distort modern discussions about Ancient Celts, for instance. This is more than just 'every generation seeing things in a new light.'

[Kosmo]

Of course, every generation tries to bring something new and does that by either climbing on the shoulders of those before them or by hammering them to pieces.

 

I agree that any historian has a point to prove and he might interpret the facts to fit in his story, but a history book without a point it's even harder to digest, a pile of informations and unconnected conclusions. A illegitimate agenda is present only when his purpose has nothing to do with the subject, but with various -ism's and this the fault of all generations (Gibbon and his republican, antichristian agenda it's an obvious example).

 

There is also a style problem. The older generations made history like a story, easy to follow and to comprehend with accent on politics. The newer ones focus on specific aspects and their interest it's spread to directions that the old ones ignored (like private life or female status). That's why I find Mommsen still usable if I want to know the broad lines of a political event, but I know I must look to a recent study if I want to know the detailes. What it's often put in a phrase (or not mentioned at all) by him, a contemporary writer made a book about.

 

The fact that some recent books and theories make no sense or do not help at all it's more a matter of poor writing then a general problem (the britons - celts/iron age tribes debate it's similar with another book I've just read and I have problems locating the conclusions of the book) in tune with this preocupation with exact wording. Who knows unsuccesfull historians of XIX-XX centuries? Nobody could tell that about Peter Heather and many (I dare say most) today historians.

[georgious]

Of course, every generation tries to bring something new and does that by either climbing on the shoulders of those before them or by hammering them to pieces.

 

I agree that any historian has a point to prove and he might interpret the facts to fit in his story, but a history book without a point it's even harder to digest, a pile of informations and unconnected conclusions. A illegitimate agenda is present only when his purpose has nothing to do with the subject, but with various -ism's and this the fault of all generations (Gibbon and his republican, antichristian agenda it's an obvious example).

 

There is also a style problem. The older generations made history like a story, easy to follow and to comprehend with accent on politics. The newer ones focus on specific aspects and their interest it's spread to directions that the old ones ignored (like private life or female status). That's why I find Mommsen still usable if I want to know the broad lines of a political event, but I know I must look to a recent study if I want to know the detailes. What it's often put in a phrase (or not mentioned at all) by him, a contemporary writer made a book about.

 

The fact that some recent books and theories make no sense or do not help at all it's more a matter of poor writing then a general problem (the britons - celts/iron age tribes debate it's similar with another book I've just read and I have problems locating the conclusions of the book) in tune with this preocupation with exact wording. Who knows unsuccesfull historians of XIX-XX centuries? Nobody could tell that about Peter Heather and many (I dare say most) today historians.

Concerning history in general and Roman history especially one must point out that history is a not an exact science.It uses the finding of sciences-as paleography for example but historical writing is actually an art form. If anyone is a film-buff in IMDB I had an exchange with Mary Beard about the series I Claudius and I stated that what we have as evidence is ancient historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius of a very specific social class and social milieu on whose writings Robert Graves created a novel that was made to a series targeting a middle-class english-speaking audience.I offer this example of an audiovisual historical product as opposed to scientific historical writing to show how many intermediaries and distorting lenses exist between historical realities and how we perceive it. One must not only speak of historians but of their readers. For example in an introductory film about the series "Rome" a commentator said that what mainly separates us from the Romans is the Judaeo-christian ethic-Orwell speaking about Flaubert's Salambo said through an imaginative effort Flaubert made the Carthaginian mercenaries of Matho pre-christian re-enacting the stony heartedness of Antiquity.As far as history is concerned I am an agnostic only certain facts can be known as for interpretations those are conditioned by the historians and the reader's immersion in modernity- we shall never know how the Romans were because we always read ourselves in them. As Kant said we perceive reality but through the aid of certain categories ingrained in us without whom we could not perceive it-but the categories condition what we perceive as reality- it is the eye of the beholder.Objective history is a chimaera.As for famous historians I think they are the equivalent of tribal elders and foundation myth creators as Livy was for Rome for example.

[sonic]

It is fair to say that all historians have in-built biases and misconceptions, even though many of us try to overcome them. It is also true to say that what we like and dislike when reading history as individuals today was determined by what we were taught or believed yesterday. We all bring these biases to our reading of history, whether we like it or not.

 

The older authors, such as Gibbon, were brought up in a society where Rome and Greece were admired for their contribution to modern society. Many authors took ancient authorities at face value, without any analysis or criticism, and often made mistakes. What they did have, as anyone who has read Gibbon can confirm, is a vast amount of background knowledge that they could use to put their views into context. Without context, history is treated as just a series of isolated episodes, without relation to what went before, what happened after, and, just as important, what was happening at the same time. This is bad history.

 

The newer, 'revisionist', historians, do not have the same breadth of knowledge and can therefore make mistakes when seeing incidents in isolation. This also is bad history. What they do have is the ability to analyse their sources, compare and contrast them to other sources, and reach a reasoned conclusion that is likely to be more accurate than those of Gibbon et al. However, by the very nature of their research they must be classed as 'revisionist', as they are looking at the evidence with fresh eyes, using new techniques, trying to revise our interpretations of the past.

 

So, do I prefer the newer 'revisionist' historians, with their analytical ability but their lack of context that can lead to misconceptions, or do I prefer the older historians, with their context but a naivety towards their sources that allows them to make mistakes?

 

I am slowly gaining a greater degree of trust in the older historians, whilst bearing in mind that they can be mistaken. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, their broad knowledge enables them to see the wider picture. This is vital in history, as I will try to show in a miinute. Secondly, there was less pressure in the past to 'make your name' by writing 'extreme' revisionist history, so they are writing what they believed, not what they thought would make a name for themselves. Thirdly, although naive, their use of sources is usually accurate.

 

Let me give an example of two of these points. I am currently conducting research into the life of Belisarius. When it came to the Battle of Ad Decimum, my first choice was, of course, Procopius. He was an eyewitness and could be expected to give an outline of events as they happened. Once I had read the report of the battle and believed that I understood it, I turned to my secondary sources. By chance, the first book I picked up was 'The Life of Belisarius' by Lord Mahon, first written in 1829. His account matched what I had read and I felt confident that I now understood what had happened. By a further chance, the second book I looked at was 'Byzantium: The Early Centuries' by J.J. Norwich. His account does not match that of Procopius.

 

(If you don't believe me, read them yourself: Procopius, Vandalic War, Book 1, Chapters 18-20; J.J.Norwich, Byzantium: The Early Centuries', 1988, p.208-9.)

 

After much thought, I believe I understand what has happened. Modern historians recognise that they are part of a tradition that, In Theory, goes back to Herodotus. Therefore, they - like me - read secondary sources in order to help make decisions about history. The 'traditionalists' (here meaning pre-c.1970) believed that most of the groundwork had been done. Historians such as Gibbon, MacCauley, Mommsen, Alfoldi etc had built up a framework that simply needed to be adjusted by fresh ideas, but was in essence 'The Truth'.

 

Yet there was a problem with this viewpoint. Writers in the 18th and 19th centuries usually made suggestions about history that might be true, later generations acknowledged that they probably were true, and even later generations knew that they were true: concept had become undisputed fact. This is what had happened to Norwich. Rather than reading the account of Procopius himself, he relied upon his predecessors and their accounts, which - over time - had become warped away from reality.

 

Modern, 'revisionist', historians do not rely upon their immediate predessors for their information, prefering instead to look at the primary sources and make their own, revised opinions. In many cases this is a good thing for history. without revision, we cannot learn where authors in the past have made mistakes, or assumptions that are actually open to dispute. Unfortunately, modern history as taught at Univesity is becoming more and more narrow in its outlook. The age of the scholar with a vast breadth of knowledge is passing. This lets modern historians down. They now attempt to place their 'revised' version of history into a context which i) they have not studied in depth, and ii) has not in itself been revised.

 

Taking all of the above into consideration, I now believe that earlier historians are unlikely to be tainted by the misconceptions of their immediate predecessors. Therefore, as long as you bear in mind that their use of the sources may be a little primitive by today's standards, they are preferable in many respects and should be read first. Then read the newer revisionists, comparing and contrasting as you go to make up your own mind.

 

And always keep an open mind: university lecturers and history writers are renowned for their closed minds: after all, would you want to spend twenty or thirty years writing scholarly tomes only to have some wet-behind-the-ears teenage brat come up and point out that the basis for your life's work is actually wrong? I think not......

[Northern Neil]

I wonder to what extent current events or even popular culture may influence a historian's analysis?

When I first read Peter Brown's 'The World of Late Antiquity' I was drawn to the idea that Rome evolved rather than fell, and that the Germans were holding the Western provinces as a sort of 'stewardship'. Then look at the date it was written - 1971. The hippie age was not quite finished. The Germans were now our best friends, the Western bulwark against Warsaw Pact forces we were sure were going to have a crack at us sooner or later. Still, I was quite drawn to this idea until I read Ward Perkins, Peter Heather and David S. Potter, who actually returned to the original 'Catastrophic fall' idea, albeit minus Gibbon's period of protracted decline. Again, look at the time these latter writers published their work - the last five years or so, a time when the some people in West perceive it as under threat from mass terrorism and immigration, and envisage a sudden economic and population crash due to environmental factors.

 

I am not saying I agree with these ideas, just tossing them around...

[M. Porcius Cato]

And always keep an open mind: university lecturers and history writers are renowned for their closed minds: after all, would you want to spend twenty or thirty years writing scholarly tomes only to have some wet-behind-the-ears teenage brat come up and point out that the basis for your life's work is actually wrong? I think not......

 

Since most professors began their intellectual life as "wet-behind-the-ears teenage brats" themselves, they're mostly thrilled to hear any intelligent commentary from students, even if it is challenging. Of course, what's disappointing is that most (but not all) commentary from students is at best a rehash of something they read or heard elsewhere but with no awareness of the supporting evidence that justified the original insight. The traditionalism being advocated here is simply turning this habit of thoughtless imitation into some kind of principle.

[Primus Pilus]

When analyzing the work of a historian, I simply relate their work with the source material in question. Does the source material support the concept or idea being put forth, or does it force a good deal of conjecture. Is any resulting conjecture based on what might be perceived as a particular agenda or is related with a preconceived underlying ideology? If my perception tells me that the answer to that question is no and the historian is truly attempting to provide honest historical analysis even with limited source material, then I can readily appreciate the concept whether I agree with the conclusion or not.

 

If the source material in question (whether it be ancient text, archaeology or what have you) is counter to the conjecture of the historian, than in my opinion, the historian has no basis for that conjecture and should be summarily dismissed. (However, we must also account for legitimate mistakes throughout an entire work that we might otherwise deem acceptable.)

 

Yes, as one might imagine, my analysis is very dependent upon my own flawed (though rarely ) perceptions.

[sonic]

And always keep an open mind: university lecturers and history writers are renowned for their closed minds: after all, would you want to spend twenty or thirty years writing scholarly tomes only to have some wet-behind-the-ears teenage brat come up and point out that the basis for your life's work is actually wrong? I think not......

 

Since most professors began their intellectual life as "wet-behind-the-ears teenage brats" themselves, they're mostly thrilled to hear any intelligent commentary from students, even if it is challenging. Of course, what's disappointing is that most (but not all) commentary from students is at best a rehash of something they read or heard elsewhere but with no awareness of the supporting evidence that justified the original insight. The traditionalism being advocated here is simply turning this habit of thoughtless imitation into some kind of principle.

 

I have met professors who do not like their students to think too much, as well as some who were willing to listen to any drivel in the hope that it might spur on the student to innovative thought. But overall I agree.