Reflective Essay:

What is Historiography?



















Brad Miller
History 6010: Historiography
December 10, 2013

Thesis: The distinct and necessary delineation between the philosophy of Historiography and the
argumentation of historiography combine to define the writing of history and its approaches over
time.

Miller 2

Clio, the muse of history, heralded creativity and inspiration to the minds of historians in
Ancient Greece. The muses were responsible for instilling imaginative fervor into the minds of artists,
but history had begun to evolve from its creative verse into a discipline functioning for the betterment
of the state. A far more appropriate classical representation of history is the Roman god, Janus.
Usually depicted with two faces, Janus is the god of time and transition always looking back to the
past and forward towards the future. The vision of Janus reflects the thoughts of the modern historian
who is constantly observing change in the past in anticipation for its effects in the future.
Historiography is a process of the historical discipline observing its own changes and its own identity
in order to further improve itself and its conclusions. Alternatively, historiography (denoted by a lower
case h) accounts for the variety of approaches and attitudes toward the past, which lead to different
conclusions on the same topic. The distinct and necessary delineation between the philosophy of
Historiography and the argumentation of historiography combine to define the writing of history and
its approaches over time.
Historiography is the philosophy of history. At the foundation of every discipline is the
methodology which guides the mind and subdues the heart; the framework of scholarship every
historian must encounter through their work. The study of history provokes the unavoidable collision
of the past with the present in search of understanding the past and discovering the truth. No
universal standard was, or will be set to define the thought process appropriate for historians, just as
it is untold the ability of historians to depict an objective past so distant from the contemporary
mindset of modern times. Essentially, historiography defines the individual historian in their pursuit
to ask questions, acquire evidence, and interpret this information to understand and formulate
conclusions. Written history, a balance between analysis of the past and well-constructed narrative, is
Miller 3

the product of the complexities underlying the discipline and the choices inevitably made by the
historian.
The implementation of Historiography for a particular subject, event, movement, person, or
group is defined by its historiography. In this sense, historiography of a particular topic is defined by
the varying theses extant within scholarships that have developed through series of questions,
research, and conclusions. The existence of historiography serves for the betterment of historical
scholarship. In creating a summation of previous scholarship, with an emphasis on sources and
interpretation, historians are able to check previous understanding while simultaneously challenging
the status quo. Historians with new, informed understanding of the topic are then able to create a
new niche within the field of study. The rather natural progression of establishing a conclusion only
for it to be challenged by something new, defines this fulfillment of historiography and its necessity in
developing a continuum of theories regarding a historically significant occurrence. This Hegelian
gamut of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is a perpetual development of historical knowledge defining
the modern practice of history. The endless cycle may seem futile because the questions of what
and when are constantly reinforced through careful research. However, the matters of how and
why remain elusive without the reevaluation of sources and the evolution of interpretive
approaches. The extent in which historiography is applicable to an individual historian is dependent
upon the goal of achievement, primarily defined by a sense of historical understanding.
One of the more unique historiographies was written by Norman F. Cantor, entitled Inventing
the Middle Ages. Cantors historiography of sorts, introduces twenty prominent medievalists and their
respective approaches to the Middle Ages that make their histories unique. As the title suggests, the
perceptions of the Middle Ages were developed through the works of these authors and the
competing views from Europe and the United States throughout the 20
th
century. Cantor discusses
Miller 4

among other approaches, the Formalist school of thought which utilizes art and literature as primary
source material, the American approach influenced by Wilsonian Progressivism, and the seminal work
of Frederic Maitland regarding the social purposes undergirding English common law. Among the
most popularly known medievalists mentioned are C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. Grouped as the
Oxford Fantasists, these authors utilized their academic training to create unique fictional novels
based upon historical realities drawn from the experiences of the Middle Ages. Each unique
perspective provides a more complete picture of Medieval life that involves different causes and
motivations.
There is no way to define the ways in which history acts. The discipline encompasses a
multitude of approaches and contrasting schools of thought making any attempt very challenging.
Prominent historians Marc Bloch and Jonathan Walker would both agree that history is a difficult
process because of its fluid nature in both content and context. In Blocs quintessential publication on
historical theory, The Historians Craft, he argues for a standard model of observation across all
history, like that of a doctor who performs an autopsy in order to uncover the truth. There is a
procedure to follow; however, the dynamics of history require unorthodox means much a like a jazz
musician who develops an improvisationexploring a range of rhythms and tones while remaining
within the limits of the song. In Walkers vivid and imaginative Pistols! Treason! Murder! he frequently
references the lifeless material of the past and the need for historians to revive the cadavers, or
primary sources hidden among the archives, in order to better comprehend previous events. The
flexibility of historians allow them to better understand the past and as a result tune their senses to
the world around them in hopes of tuning the senses of humanity to anticipate the problems in their
present and future.
Miller 5

Uncovering the past and explaining its content denotes a certain level of understanding but
does not account for the many ways in which the past is perceived, or known by society. Historian
Paul Cohen set out to discuss the many other ways of knowing the past in his book History in Three
Keys. Using the Boxer Rebellion in China at the turn of the 20
th
century as a point of reference Cohen
explains the deeper needs of the historian. Cohen argues there are three keys to unlocking the past:
event, experience, and myth. Historians comprehend the past with the advantage of knowing the
outcome of the event and perceive their conclusions from the broad picture as the truth. The
historical actors who experience an event are personally connected to the action through the
narrow lens of their senses. The myth that is created after the fact, alters the past for a distinct
purpose and usually adapts into a deeper cultural meaning or truth. The truths evident from
Cohens three keys are further complicated by Louis Haas addendum of keys four and five, the actual
event and mythography. The first three keys can attribute a sense of truth, but the truth of the actual
event are accessible in key four, though they cannot reproduce an all-encompassing atmosphere.
Mythography describes the understanding of the past from the perspective of an average individual
who is subject and pressured by the conclusions reached by the first four keys. Individuals must
grapple with the positives and negatives of every conclusion to formulate their own stance. The
competing ways in which the past can be perceived are important in understanding the ways in which
histories are written and the subjected veracity to the words chosen in the text.
The defining characteristics of modern history can be traced back to important historians of
ancient Greece, Herodotus and Thucydides who transformed the medium of history. Herodotus, the
father of history, chronicled the triumphant victory of Greece in the Great Persian War, not in the
tradition of epic verse, but had set the tone for the new medium of history in a captivating narrative.
His work focused on the histories of foreign people, places, and culture related to the Great Persian
Miller 6

War. His universal approach to the past inspired the cultural history approach and while it may not
fully compare to the analysis of modern history, his vivid narrative remains a point of example for
capturing the attention of an audience. Thucydides wrote a contemporary history detailing the self-
destruction of Greece as a result of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides emphasized the human
experience through the perspective of common actors in his history, particularly through the use of
speeches. Both Herodotus and Thucydides argued against the development of events through divine
will and instead reasoned for the humanistic causation of events; placing humans as the agents of
history. In writing polis history, Thucydides also transcended the contemporary concern for
reconstructing the past, and instead wanted to address possible lessons to be learned from the
mistakes of political action in the years past. Herodotus and Thucydides formulated historical
approaches that may seem distant from the established practice in modern times, but the former
understood the connectivity of all events when analyzing the past while the latter founded the annals
of a great civilization through the perceptions of men, rather than gods.
All historical writing is based upon some theoretical approach in which evidence is handled
and interpreted through a basic set of structures. Just as history is dependent upon the era of its
conception, so are the theoretical frameworks in which histories are conceived. Based in the 18
th

century Enlightenment, empiricism set the standard for science based inquiry in history. Led by
Leopold Von Ranke in Germany, historians were turned towards the archives and urged to research
through primary documents recognized as containing the truth. The prominent theories which exist in
the modern discipline stem from developments such as the New History in the United States at the
turn of the 20
th
century and the Annales School in inter-war Europe. The New History was a
development in which the topics of history would expand past politics and prominent leaders and
focus on the masses with an interdisciplinary approach. American historian J. Franklin Jameson
Miller 7

likened the specialization of the discipline to the bricks of a building; each specialized historian
contributing their own brick to construct the complete mansion of history.
The European counterpart to the New History was the emerging Annales School of thought.
The Annales School was founded by French historians Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch in efforts to
diversify the topics and approaches of history to assert its importance in the atmosphere of science
dominated academia. Their work was framed around the idea of total history, in which all aspects of
society are topics of analysis, not just politics. The Annales School also wanted to capture the
mentalit, or set of beliefs and thought processes, held by individuals or a collective society. By
capturing the mindset of the past, historians are able to expand their understanding of the past from
details of events and actions and further supplement history with motivations behind decisions and
hypothetical reactions to what could have happened. In Andrew Bursteins The Passions of Andrew
Jackson analyzes the emotions and attitudes of Andrew Jackson through his peer relationships to
better understand and justify actions during his service to the United States, particularly the
questionable decision to remove Native Americans in what would later be termed the Trail of Tears.
Jackson was a self-made man and he made every decision in life with conviction, unable to conceive
his beliefs as wrong. The diversification of history from these two movements continued throughout
the 20
th
century prompting the rise of other theoretical school such as psychoanalysis, historical
sociology, and ethnohistory. Each new perspective lends its tools to a deeper depiction of the past
particularly focusing on the development of the individual over time and space.
The jobs of the historian are many, limited only by the extent of their perceived role and the
diversity of tools in their possession. The universal standards of the historian are based in source
criticism. The evidence historians are solely dependent upon can also be the biggest detriment to
their process. Sources are created by the recorded perceptions of humans, which by nature are biased
Miller 8

and subject to the context of the event. Historians must avoid judgment within their interpretation of
their research. In law, there is right and wrong, black and white. Historians thrive in the grey of
competing facts. By striving to understand the complexities, Bloch argues that history may evoke
justice in events of the past in which it was neglected. While historians perceive the present with such
clarity, each step into the past slowly diminishes their sight and confuses the sense. The archives may
hold the truth, but the documents must be properly analyzed and asked the right questions in order
for the facts to shine through to the present. Alongside the research, historians must approach their
inquiry from all perspectives. They must wage a war of attrition. Leave no side unexamined in order to
extrapolate a well-rounded view from the grips of primary sources. In Pistols! Treason! Murder!
Walker guides the reader through his challenging research at the archives of the Inquisitors of the
State, a counter-intelligence organization from Renaissance Italy specializing in keeping secrets.
Walkers narrative of Vano, the General of Spies, reveals the deceitful ways of a spy only by retracing
his irrational footsteps through Venice. Intermingled among the grey, the standards of history provide
a sense of clarity among a maze of confusion.
One of the major obstacles of historians is the presence of bias in sources and their own
writing. Bias is entirely unavoidable, but if handled properly it can be used by historians to further
develop their research and enhance the narrative. Bias takes shape in the available source material or
the engrained perceptions of every individual or historian who shapes their own view of the past.
Most historians do not choose to be bias, but their personal beliefs or goals inevitably mold their
process of understanding. For example, Robert Reminis seminal work on Andrew Jackson, The Life of
Andrew Jackson is a saintly praise of the seventh president who could do no wrong. Andrew Bursteins
Passions of Andrew Jackson was later written and utilized similar sources available about Jackson and
concluded he was equally susceptible to the flaws of human nature far from the divine stature Remini
Miller 9

presented. It came down to differing approaches to the sources, but more importantly the motivation
in telling the story of such a prominent figure whose populist approach to government showed the
success of democracy in the United States.
In some cases, historians clearly choose to approach the facts with a predetermined
conclusion that allows for misinterpretation. For example, John Lotts More Guns, Less Crime argued
states that allow citizens to carry guns have lower crime rates. Lott supported his argument with
statistical data that he later was unable to recreate, claiming his computer had crashed, he had lost
the CD with the data, and refusing to contact the supposed student who had helped with the national
survey. It was evident Lott had purposefully fabricated the data in order to support the cause for gun
ownership in the United States. His unethical work reveals the power of the past and the need to
question and understand sources beyond a doubt, or else fall prey to bias. However, historians do
have the choice to reject the presence of bias or embrace its complications to their product. The most
recent development within academics which factors in this inherent bias is the practice of
postmodernism. By rejecting the universal ideals established through modernism, postmodernist
thought within history argues for a more complex set of causes and outcomes fully aware the
consequences of the historians involvement alters the final understanding of the past.
The applications of history are both dynamic and diverse. History is a product of its time and a
resource of understanding utilized for cultural, political, and economic ends. Since history is an
analysis of the past, consciously and subconsciously influenced by the atmosphere of the present, the
sum of its efforts become a self-reflection of humankind. For example, Lawrence Stone wrote Family,
Sex, and Marriage because there was a new concern in the 1970s for the stability of the Western
family. Stone analyzed the transformation of the kin-based, detached familial relationship in pre-
modern times, to the emotional nuclear family of modern times. Following suit in 1985, John Gillis
Miller 10

published For Better, For Worse which focused on the transformation of British marriage, not as an
improvement alongside modernization, but an emotional detriment to the female spouse. Gilliss
intentions were evident because he served as national co-chair of the Council on Contemporary
Families and was awarded a fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at
Stanford.
History has also been applied to larger systems of economics and civic engagement that have
developed sizeable changes in world history. The Marxist approach to history, a cyclical determination
of economic disparity and power exchange, was altered by Vladimir Lenin as justification for the
Russian Revolution and successive leaders of the Soviet Union as a viable political model. Karl Marxs
ideas were based upon his diagnosis of a rapidly industrializing West that would certainly witness the
almighty force of capitalism fail. However, Marx was much more a diagnostician than a clinician and
the intentions of Lenin and his successors were foiled by the downfalls of communism. In the United
States Progressive historian Frederick Jackson Turner advocated for scholarship beyond mere lists of
political rulers and events, but instead searched for the utility of history and the vital opportunities
to improve the citizens of American society. Progressivism vied for a greater sense of informed
citizenry that would adapt society to the modernization occurring in America. In other words, history
encourages critical thinking and helps humanity to anticipate the problems in their present and
future. In Historians in Public, Ian Tyrrell argues the emergence of historians into the public sphere of
20
th
century America marked the powerful role of history as a means to define American culture
and define the ideals of a democracy that can do no wrong. When applied, history becomes a
powerful implement to forward ideals and even control national attitudes.
The balance of controlling history is problematic because there is no standard for its
production nor an established individual or group responsible for its interpretation. Events, people, or
Miller 11

certain ways of life that are considered influential within a cultural are regarded as aspects of a
societys heritage. Historians do not seek to justify the present with the past, but rather reveal a
better understanding of the truth no matter the outcome. The constructs of heritage are formulated
in the creation of myths and stories which promote a singular and positivist progress of time that is
followed with an almost religious fervor. Historical facts which fall outside of the prescribed narrative
are silenced because it better serves the collective identity, usually becoming the inquiry of the
historian. Cohens third key, myth, argues the creation of alternate narratives to better serve the
needs of the contemporary atmosphere must be carefully considered by historians. The problem only
arises once the alternative evolves into the accepted narrative, or if it began as the only existing
interpretation. In the Whites of Their Eyes Jill Lepore discusses the modern Tea Partys fundamental
interpretation of the events throughout the American Revolution to justify their political beliefs,
disregarding any scholarship which states otherwise. Lepore took it upon herself to discuss the
situation from a historians perspective because she felt it was her responsibility to speak for the
misused voices of the past. The Tea Party members were selectively quoting the Founding Fathers and
promoting a nostalgia of American identity that was far from factual. The struggle in The Whites of
Their Eyes was intensified by a struggle between Americans for possession of the past; while there is
no correct way to view the past, the Tea Party was perceiving the American Revolution in a perverse
manner.
The interaction of historical memory and written history provides a tense atmosphere for
discussing the validity of both sides of the story. Bloch reminds historians that memory is a production
of the present and not the past, but should remain as a source of contemporary evidence. The most
recent development in historical scholarship which deals with historical memory is oral history. Oral
history is based upon evidence acquired through a direct interview with an individual invoking the
Miller 12

timeless tradition of oral transaction or through a means of written recollection. As with any source,
historians must interrogate the evidence with the knowledge of its creation and content. Experiencing
an event, much like that of Cohens second key, occurs in the past while formulation of a memory is
an action transacted in the present. For example, Australian soldiers recounting their experience in
World War One divert their experience to fulfill either the ANZAC myth of discipline and courage
under fire or the larrikin attitudes of the fearful digger. The former favored by public opinion, uplifts
the Australian national identity, while the latter echoes the negative aspects of the countrys convict
past but appropriately recounts the fear and bloodshed experienced by soldiers in warfare. Veterans
unknowingly alter their memory to better fit the archetype of the ANZAC soldier as well as consciously
embellishing the past for a more entertaining narrative or reputation.
The power of heritage over history is multiplied when the agents of history are still alive and
able to assert their perspective of historical memory. When the historical actors are World War Two
veterans who hold a revered place in Americas heart, the power exponentially increases. The
controversial Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum exemplifies the power of
World War Two veterans who wished to convey the positive aspects of courage and service to the
United States within their legacy. The Smithsonian planned an exhibition centered around the Enola
Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima at the end of World War Two that would
showcase the power of the atomic bomb. The exhibit conveyed the morally troubling aspects of
dropping the atomic bomb on Japanese citizens which fostered a sense of negativity towards those
who served, particularly Air Force veterans responsible for the enormous payloads dropped during
the war. The controversy sparked national attention and cost several museum staff their jobs. The
publics attack on the Smithsonian exemplifies the power of the people, especially the conservative
right wing of politics, to reject the work of historians who unearth aspects of the American past that
Miller 13

taint the image of freedom and democracy. The power of the public, especially in moral dilemmas
comparable to the atomic bombing of almost 500,000 Japanese citizens, represses the past or
successfully alters the facts so that it appears as a mark of victory for the nation.
The historians familiarity with Historiography and historiography defines not only their ability
to critically analyze the past and formulate a narrative in hopes of reflecting the present, but also the
level of understanding within the discipline to agree and critique their peers to transform historical
understanding. Over the course of time, historians have devised new and interesting frameworks in
which to study the past; all of which provide unique perceptions. The emergence of a burgeoning
colonialist expansion by the turn of the 20
th
century could be traditionally studied as the successes of
the Western world, approached from the Marxist perspective which views the detriments of
colonialism as the final transformation of capitalism, or written from the perception of a subjugated
colonial subject. The methodology behind history becomes a battle waged from perspectives and
thought processes, but grounded in the fundamentals of research. Historians have sought refuge in
the evidence they have unearthed, until ready to convey their narratives to the people of the present.
The development of historiographies across an array of subjects has complicated the publics
perspectives of the past but has revealed the complexities which speak volumes to historians willing
to listen. History requires methodology and knowledge to successfully balance the facts of the past
with the perceptions of the present.