What is Historiography?

Author(s): Carl Becker

Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Oct., 1938), pp. 20-28
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the American Historical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1840848 .
Accessed: 08/08/2011 21:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 WHAT IS HISTORIOGRAPHY?

FORTY years ago I was fascinatedby the study of history-the

mechanicsof research,of thatsortof researchat all events(thereare
other kinds) which has been definedas "taking litde bits out of a
greatmany books which no one has ever read, and puttingthem to-
getherin one book whichno one everwill read". Later I became less
interestedin the studyof historythan in historyitself-thatis to say,
in the suggestivemeanings which could be attributedto certain
periodsor great events,such as that "the spiritof Rome is an acid
which,applied to the sentimentof nationality,dissolvesit", or that
"the Renaissancewas the double discoveryof man and the world".
Now thatI am old the mostintriguingaspectof historyturnsout to
be neitherthe studyof historynor historyitself,in the above noted
senses,but ratherthestudyof thehistoryof historicalstudy.The name
given to thisaspectof historyis the unlovelyone, as Mr. Barnes says,
of Historiography.'
What preciselyis historiography? It may be, and untilrecentlyfor
themostparthas been,littlemorethanthenotationof historicalworks
sincethetimeof theGreeks,withsome indicationof thepurposesand
pointsof view of the authors,the sourcesused by them,and the ac-
curacyand readabilityof the works themselves.The chiefobject of
such enterprisesin historiography is to assess, in termsof modern
standards,the value of historicalworks for us. At this level his-
toriography gives us manuals of information about historiesand his-
torians,providesus, so to speak, with a neat balance sheet of the
"contributions" which each historianhas made to the sum total of
verifiedhistoricalknowledge now on hand. Such manuals have a
high practicalvalue. To the candidateforthe Ph. D. theyare indeed
indispensable,since theyprovidehim at second hand with the most
up-to-dateinformation.From them he learnswhat were the defects
and limitationsof his predecessors,even the mostillustrious,without
the troubleof reading theirworks-as, for example,that Macaulay,
althougha brilliantwriter,was blinded by Whig prejudice,or that
Tacitus'sestimateof Tiberiushas been supersededby laterresearches,
1 A History of Historical Writing. By Harry Elmer Barnes. (Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press. 1937. Pp. x, 434. $3.50.)

20
 What is Historiography? 2I

or thatThucydides's trenchantaccountof the Peloponnesian War

suffers
fromtheauthor's unfamiliarity
withthedoctrine oftheeconomic
interpretation
ofhistory. Knowingthelimitations ofourmostfamous
predecessors
givesus all confidencein thevalueofourownresearches:
we maynot be brilliant, but we can be sound.We have thegreat
advantage of livingin moreenlightened times:our monographs may
neverrankwithThe DeclineandFall as literary classics,
buttheywill
be basedupon sourcesof information not availableto Gibbon,and
madeimpeccable bya scientific
methodnotyetdiscovered in his day.
Mr. HarryElmerBarnes'sHistoryof HistoricalWritingis far
morethanthis-morethanan annotated catalogueofhistorical works.
Yet in somesenseit is thistoo,a littletoomuchso, moreso perhaps
thanhispurposecalledforor thanhe intended. Therearepartsof the
book whichleftme withlittlebut an enviousadmiration forthe
author'serudition,hiseasyfamiliarity
withthecontents ofinnumerable
booksof whichI had neverheard.My first impression,indeed,upon
finishingthebookwas thatI couldhappilyfindwithinitscoversthe
nameofeveryhistorian sincethetimeofMenetho.Of courseno real
scholarwouldgetanysuchimpression. Not beinga learnedperson, I
am easilyastoundedby anyonewho knowvs thetitlesof a thousand
andonebooks.Butstill,I havelookedat bibliographies-for example,
the Bibliographie de l'histoirede Paris pendant1a Re' olutionby
Tourneux,in five large volumes; and recallingthis impressivework
I realizethateven thebare titlesof all thebookson theFrenchRevolu-
tionalone could not be containedin Mr. Barnes'ssmall volume.What
a listof all thehistoricalwritingssincethetimeof Menethowould run
to I know not,nor wish to know-a dreadfulthought!And so, not to
slanderMr. Barnes,I hastento say that theremust be innumerable
writerswhom he does not mention,and even, I like to think,many
whom he has neverheardof. He has afterall selectedonlya few,rela-
tivelyspeaking;and he has selectedthem,if at timeswith insufficient
restraint, fora definitepurpose.
Mr. Barnes stateshis purposeas follows:-"to characterizethe in-
tellectualbackgroundof each major period of human advance in
westerncivilization,shiowhow the historicalliteratureof each period
has been relatedto its parentculture,pointout the dominanttraitsof
the historicalwritingin each era, indicate the advance, if any, in
historicalscience,anidthenmake clear the individualcontributions of
the major historicalwritersof the age". At this level historiography
should be somethingmore than an estimiate of the contributions
of
22 Carl Becker

historiansto present knowledge.It shouldbe in somesensea phase

of intellectual
history,thatphaseof it whichrecordswhatmenhave
at differenttimesknownand believedaboutthe past,the use they
have made,in theserviceof theirinterests and aspirations, of their
knowledge andbeliefs, and theunderlying presuppositions whichhave
made theirknowledge seemto themrelevant and theirbeliefsseem
to themtrue.The historiographer who wishesto succeedat thislevel
shouldacquiremuchpreciseknowledge, butaboveall he shouldcul-
tivatea capacityforimaginative understanding. If he wishesto fail,
he shouldcultivate a capacity forbeingirritated bytheignorance and
foolishnessof his predecessors.
How wellhasMr.Barnessucceeded in accomplishing hispurpose?
On the whole,well enough.Mr. Barneshas, to be sure,a certain
capacityforbeingirritated. It is a defectofhisquality.He is thatrare
phenomenon, a learnedcrusader.He is passionately interestedin the
applicationof scientific knowledgeto the taskof creatingthe good
society.He is profoundly convinced thathistory, rightly understood,
throws muchneededlighton thecausesoftheplightin whichwe find
ourselvesat thepresent moment;convinced, therefore, thathistorians,
if onlytheywouldfullyemancipate themselves fromantiquarianism
andbringtheirknowledge tobearuponpresent socialproblems, could
contribute morethantheydo to thesolutionof thoseproblems.I sus-
pectthatwhatreallyirritates Mr.Barnesis afterall notthehistorians
butratherthefactthatso fewpeoplemakeanyeffort to appropriate
theknowledge available, so manypeopleprefer theSaturday Evening
Postto themostup-to-date popularworkson thesocialsciences;and
thisirritationis in partconveniently relievedfromtimeto timeby
disparaging andopprobrious remarks about"theorthodox historian"-
a speciessupposedto have flourished unashamedbeforethe timeof
JamesHarveyRobinsonand notyetwhollyextinct.
Sincetheorthodox historian playsa minorrolein thepresent book,
a wordneedsto be said abouthim. I am notsurethatI haveever
metthefellowin theflesh.By definition he appearsto be a timid,
refined professor,a littleapprehensive aboutholdinghis job, who is
interestedin political,military, and diplomatic events,is unawareof
theimportance ofeconomic, social, and culturalinfluences, and greatly
exaggerates the role of individualsas causal factorsin the historic
process.Whatpuzzlesme a littleis thaton thisshowingMr. Barnes
himself, althoughrarelyaccountedtimidand neverknownto be
restrainedbythefearoflosinghisjob,canbeotherwise orthodox when
 What is Historiography? 23

theoccasioncallsforit. In hisbook,TheGenesis oftheWorldWar,

I seemto remember, he dealtexclusively
withpoliticaland diplomatic
eventsandendedbynamingfourindividuals whosenefarious activities
werelargelyresponsible forbringingon thewar. Whatpuzzlesme
stillmoreis thefactthat,althoughfromMr. Barnes'sgeneraldiscus-
sion of the "new history"I should expectvirtuallyall historiansprior
to the twentieth centuryto be orthodox,I findin his pages singularly
few historianswho adhere strictlyto the orthodoxline. On the con-
trary,in thechapterson "Social and CulturalHistory"and "Kulturge-
schichte", I findevidenceleadingme to supposethatthenew historyis
at least as old as Voltaire,and thata greatmany of the most distin-
guishedhistoriansof thelast two centurieshave by no meansconfined
theirintereststo politicalhistoryor notablyexaggeratedthe role of
individualsas causal factors.
It was Freeman who said that"historyis past politics",and in his
day interestin politicaland constitutional historywas, it is true,very
strong.But Mr. Barnes mighthave foundan explanation,verysatis-
factoryto the new historiansI should have thought,of that fact. It
was a time when the major problemsof societywere political and
constitutional, a timewhen revolutions were primarilyconcernedwith
the formof governmentand the construction of the rightkind of
constitution forguaranteeingthepoliticalprivilegesand imprescriptible
naturalrightsof individuals;and what,then,were thesepoliticalhis-
toriansdoingif theywerenotbringinghistory"to bearon thepresent",
if theywerenot "exploitingthepast in theinterestof advance",which,
accordingto JamesHarvey Robinson,is what the new historiandoes
and all historiansshould do? Can it be thateven Freemanwas, in his
own day, a newer historian? But Freeman was still alive when the
economicinterpretation began to make headway,and today I would
findit difficult to name a historianof abilitywho could, accordingto
Mr. Barnes'sdefinition, be rightlyclassedwiththe strictly orthodox.I
am gratefulto Mr. Barnesfornotclassingme withtheorthodox,partly
because I dislikethe termon principle,whateverit means,chieflybe-
cause I do not like to be outrageouslyconspicuous.But stillI do not
mind being thoughta littleeccentric, and so I will riskthe following
observation:when the devotionof my colleaguesto social historybe-
comes such thata Historyof AmericanLife can be writtenwith only
a perfunctory mentionof politics,it is well to rememberthatpolitics
has afterall had somethingto do, as much at least as sport,with
making Americanlife what it is.
24 Carl Becker

ButI am makingtoomuchofMr.Barnes'sirritations and disgusts.

Theyobtrude onlylatein thebookandareat mostonlya minordefect.
Takingthebookas a whole,Mr.Barneshasdonewellwhathe setout
todo. He has"characterized theintellectual background ofeachmajor
period",ifwithno specialinsight or freshness, at leastwellenoughto
enablethe readerto understand "the dominanttraitsof historical
writing" in each period-tounderstand, forexample,whyhistorical
writing in theMiddleAgesnecessarily differed fromhistorical writing
in classicaltimes,why the Humanistsfashionedtheirhistories on
Romanmodels,whythereligious disputes of theReformation turned
theologians to thestudyof churchhistory, and so following.Partic-
ularlygood in thisconnection is his notation of therelation between
thediscovery ofnewcountries and thegrowinginterest in thehistory
of socialinstitutions and his indication of theconditions in theearly
nineteenth century whichstimulated an interest in the philosophy
ofhistory.
Nevertheless, thecharacterization of the"intellectual background"
and theexplanation of the"dominant traitsof historical writing"in
termsof thatbackground, although forthemostpartadequateto the
author's purpose,is briefand it mustbesaidsomewhat perfunctory; it
doesnotmake the substance ofthe book. The greater part of thebook
is devotedtowhatinterests Mr.Barnesfarmore-thatis to say,to the
"contributions of themajorhistorical writers" and to "theadvance,if
any,in historical science".To estimate thevalueof histories and his-
toriansfromthepointof viewof modernstandards and technique is
afterall theprincipalobjectof thebook,and thisis afterall what
Mr. Barnesdoesbest. Perhapstoo manyhistorical writers are men-
tioned,so thatat timesthebookdegenerates intoa catalogue ofnames.
"W. R. Shepherd,H. E. Bolton,W. S. Robertson, J. F. Rippy,
BernardMoses,C. W. Hackett. . . H. I. Priestley, E. C. Barker
and others"-there is, particularlyin thelaterchapters, fartoo much
ofthissortofthing.Mr.Barnesknowstoomuch,andwhenthenames
beginto swarmin memory he allowshis judgmentto retirebehind
thecloud.He is better in thoseearlier,happiertimeswhenhistorians,
notbeingso numerous, do notventure to gangup on him. He then
findsspacetotellus whotheywereandwhattheywrotewithsufficient
detailto make themand theirwritings intelligible to us. Learned
scholars,notbeingso easilyput downby Mr. Barnes'serudition as I
was,willfinderrors hereand thereand somemistaken or questionable
itjdgments. Butso faras I know,Mr.Barnes'si knowledge is adequate,
 What is Histor-iography? 25

and his estimates, if mostlyconventional, are on thewhole,perhaps

forthatreason,essentially sound. No doubtit is besidethepointto
deplore thefactthat"Thucydides neglected themagnificent opportunity
toportray thegloriesofAthenian civilization".
No doubtlessthanjus-
ticeis doneto FlaciusIllyricus and hiscollaboratorsbystressing their
"gullibility"andnotsufficiently emphasizing thefactthatinsubstituting
tradition forformallogicas a testof religiousdoctrine and practice
an
theyweregiving immense impetus to thedevelopment ofhistorical
studies.Butthesearesmallpoints.On thewholeMr.Barneshasmade
an important additionto the literature of historiography. He has
written, notan "epoch-making" book,nota profoundly originalbook
(fewbookscanbe rightly so described),buta soundandusefulbook-
forthosenottoofamiliar withthehistory ofhistorical
writing, themost
informative and stimulating book,I shouldthink,now availablein
English.
An authorshouldbe concededhis intention and judgedby the
successhe attainsin realizingit. For thisreasonI do notsayof Mr.
Barnes,as he saysof Thucydides, thathe has misseda magnificent
opportunity. Nevertheless, the opportunity, -whether magnificent or
not,is thereforthosewho wishto embraceit. It wouldbe worth
while,I shouldthink,to regardhistoriography moresimply,more
resolutely, as a phaseof intellectual history; to forgetentirely about
thecontributions of historians to presentknowledgeand to concen-
tratewhollyupontheirrolein thecultural patternof theirown time.
Fromthispointof viewthehistoriographer wouldbe primarily con-
cernedwithwhatProfessor Shotwellhappilycallsmankind's gradual
"discovery of Time"or,morebroadly, withthegradualexpansion of
thetimeand spaceframeof reference wvhich in somefashioncondi-
tionstherangeand qualityof humanthought.
Whenwe thinkof anything, we thinkof it in relationto other
thingslocatedin spaceand occurring in time,thatis to say,in a time
and sipaceworld,a timeand spaceframeof reference. The develop-
mentof intelligence, in theindividual and therace,is in somesensea
matter of pushingbackthelimitsof thetimeand spaceworldand
fillingitwiththings thatreallyexistandeventsthatactually happened.
The timeand spacewvorld of thenew-born child,forexample, is conI-
finedto theroomin whichhe liesand to thepresent moment:every-
thingthathe observes is seenas a close-up, unrelatedto anything else.
The earliestmenwerelike new-born children,knowingnothingof
anycountry beyondtheregionin whichtheylived,nothing, or verv
AM. HIST. REV., VOL. XLIV.-3
26 Carl Becker

littleand thatlittlemostly wrong,aboutanypasteventsin whichthey

had nottakenpart.Theytoosaw thingsas close-ups, in shortperspec-
tive,unrelated to anyverifiable objectsin distantplacesor pasttimes.
The ancientSumerians werein manywaysa highlycivilizedpeople,
buttheirsocialthinking was hampered bythefactthattheylivedin a
verynarrowtimeand spaceworld:in theirspaceworldthehuman
racecouldbe destroyed by a floodsweepingthevalleyof the Two
Rivers;in theirtimeworldtheoutstanding eventwas theGreatFlood,
beforewhichstretched an unknown period,emptyofcontent savefor
theeightkingsbelievedto havereignedduring24I,ooo years.From
thetimeof theSumerians to ourowndaythehumanracehas slowly
and painfully extendedthetimeand spaceworldin whichit could
live,thetimeand spaceframeof reference in whichit couldthink.
The spaciousness andcontent ofthetimeand spaceframeofreference,
farmorethansheerbrainpower,havedetermined therangeand direc-
tionof intelligence and theunderlying presuppositions thatso largely
shapetheideasof menabouttheirrelations to the universeand to
eachother.
Regardedstrictly as a phaseof intellectual history and not as a
balancesheetof verifiable knowledge,
historical historiography would
haveas itsmainthemethegradualexpansion of thistimeand space
wvorld(particularlythe time world perhaps,although the two are
inseparablyconnected),theitems,whethertrueor false,whichacquired
knowledgeand acceptedbeliefsenabledmen (and not historiansonly)
to findwithinit,and the influenceof thispatternof trueor imagined
events;upon the developmentof human thoughtand conduct. So
regarded,historiography would becomea historyof historyratherthan
a historyof historians,
a historyof historysubjectivelyunderstood(the
"fableagreed upon", the "pack of tricksplayed on the dead") rather
than a historyof the gradual emergenceof historicaltruthobjectively
considered.The historiographer would of course be interestedin
histories-theywould be a main sourceof information; but he would
not confinehis researchesto them-would not, indeed,be interested
in historiesas such but only as one of the literaryformsin which
currentideas about the past findexpression.Nor would he be more
interestedin truethanin falseideas aboutthepast: his aim would be to
know what ideas, trueor false,were at any time acceptedand what
pressuretheyexertedupon those who entertainedthem. He would
not thendismisstheEpic of Gilgameshor Homer's Iliad as irrelevant
forhistorybecause theyare a collectionof mythsor be contentto say
of Livy thathe is;a good storytellerbut a bad historian.Not being
 is Historiography?
JJ7hat 27

primarilyconcernedwith wvhat
the Romans actuallyknew about the
pastbutwithwhattheyhad in mindwhentheythought aboutit,he
wvouldseizeuponthefactthatLivywrotehishistory, thefactthatthe
mythsit relateswerecurrent and widelyacceptedas true.He would
realizethatwhilea mythmaynotbe true,thatit existsis true,and
thatpeoplebelieveit,is trueand maybe of thehighestimportance.
In short,the"facts"thatwould concernthe historiographer, the "what
actuallyhappened" that he would look for and find relevantto his
purpose,would be, not the truth,but the existenceand pressureof the
ideas about thepast whichmen have entertained and acted upon. His
objectwould be to reconstruct, and by imaginativeinsightand aesthetic
understandingmake live again, that patternof eventsoccurringin
distantplaces and timespast which,in successiveperiods,men have
been able to forma pictureof when contemplatingthemselves; and
theiractivitiesin relationto the world in which theylive. Whether
the eventscomposingthe patternare true or false,objectivelycon-
sidered,need not concernhim.
Taken in this sense, historiography should no doubt begin with
"pre-historictimes"-an absurd term,as Mr. Barnes says, if wveare
to regardhistoryexternally, as therecordof wvhat men have done,since
it impliesthatby farthelongestspan of humanhistoryoccurredbefore
therewas any history.But not so absurd afterall if we are to think
of historyfromthe inside,as a possessionof the mind,as the develop-
ing apprehensionof the past and of distantplaces, since the earliest
men could have had very littlehistoryin that sense. Yet even the
earliestmen (the Cro-Magnons,forexample) must have been able to
formsome picture,howeverlimitedin designand blurredin detail,of
what had occurredand was occurringin the world.What thispicture
was we can onlyguess,althoughsomeingeniousand even illuminating
guessescould no doubtbe broughtto birthby the anthropologists. The
historiographer could at all eventsbegin withthe oldestepic stories-
the BabylonianCreationEpic, Homer's Iliad, and the like. For the
early Greeks the Iliad, as someone has said (Matthew Arnold per-
haps?), was history,story,and scripture all in one. Such differentiating
termsare of course misleading,since we may be fairlysure that the
earlyGreeks made no such distinctions. The storyas told-the siege
of Troy,the doingsof men and gods-was all real,historysimply,the
recordof what actuallyhappened.And so of all people whose civiliza-
tion developeddirectlyout of primitiveconditions.
Not untilwrittenrecordshad been long in use could men become
effectivelyconsciousof the factthatthe eventas recordeddiffers from
28 Carl Becker

theeventas remembered. Then onlycouldtheyproperly distinguish

between story andhistory-between theaccountofeventsimaginatively
invented and theaccountof eventsthatactuallyhappened;thenonly
could histories be thoughtof as a "branchof literature". But the
differentiation ofhistory and literature doesnotat oncemakethegods
indispensable. Inscrutable in theirpurposes, implacablein theirjudg-
ments, rulersofmenand things, thegodsarestillnecessary: necessary
forliterature becausetheyare so intimately involvedin the current
affairsof men;necessary forhistory becausethecreation of theworld
hasto be accounted for,and men,eventheancientheroesand godlike
kings,areincapableofso greata task.Historytherefore longremains
entangled withreligion, thegodsserving as causalagenciesoperating
behindmenand events.Butas thetimeand spaceworldis expanded,
providing an evergreater variety of novelitemsforcomparison and
appraisal, philosophy intrudes withitsabstractions;and thegods,with-
drawing fromtheimmediate affairsofmentotheplacewhereabsolute
beingdwells,fadeawayintopale replicasof theirformer selves-into
theLaw of Nature,theTranscendent Idea,thedynamic principleof
Dialectic, or whatever it maybe. Philosophy in turnbecomesNatural
Philosophy, thenNaturalScience, thenScience:andscience, dispensing
altogether withtheassistance of thegodsand theirnumerous philo-
sophicprogeny, presents forcontemplation thebarerecordof how as
a matter of facttheouterworldbehaves, of whatas a matter of fact
hasoccurred in pasttimes, leavingmanalonein an indifferent universe
withoutattempting to justify its waysto his deedsand aspirations.
Thistheme, or something likeit,hasbeenplayed,withappropriate
variations, morethanonce-by the Greeks,by the Romans,by the
Europeans in moderntimes.Whatis therelation between thedevelop-
mentof an industrial-commercial the declineof traditional
society,
religiousand politicalconvictions, and thegrowthof skepticism and
scientificknowledge?How can theserelatedphenomena be correlated
withthetimeand spaceworldin whichmenlive,thetimeand space
frameof reference in whichtheythink? What place has history,
regardedas thesenseof thepast,as theapprehension of events,true
or false,thatarethought tohaveoccurred or tobe occurring in distant
placesand timespast,in thiscorrelation bothas cause and effect?
Withintherangeofthesequestions aretobe found,I venture tothink,
manyfruitful fieldsforthehistoriographer to cultivate.
CARLIBECKER.
CornellUniversity.