HISTORY

John Vincent
EmeritusProfessorof History
at the
Universityof Bristol

.N:"gnfi'ttlY:n
 Co iNm
The Tower Building 11 Yoit Road.Londoa SE1 ?Nx
15 Easl 26th Stre€t,New York l.tY 10010 Contents
ewecontinuMbook,com

OJohrYin@,1995
I History andEvidence
Ail rights res€wed.No part of rlis publicarion nay be rep.oducedor Il History andMeaning:What Meao
transmitted in any foim or by any means!ele.tonic or mechani€I.
iocluding plotocopyiry, recording oi dy inforDetion storage
Ill Historicallnagination:Why Colli
or retrieval system.withont prior permissionin witing from Matters
the pxbiishe.s lV HistoryaDdMorality
First publishedby Duckworth as V 'Kitrgs andBattles': HolocaustBli
An Inte igentPelson\ Guitk to Hisrrry ja7995 the HeritageSchool
This edition fsr publisled in 2005 VI Causesin History
Bittuh Libnry Cataloguitrg-in-PublicalionDat! VII Bias in History
A cataloguereo'd tor this book is availablefton rhe British Lihary_ VI-o The Wbig InterFeratio! of Histor-
ISBN 0,826485421 Butterfield Matte$
X History asStuctwe: Why Nanrier
X Theoriesaboutthe Past
Xl Tbe EvolutionofHistoricalStudr
Acton
XIl EconomicHistory
XIII Modem SchoolsofHistory
Postscdpt:A Year On
FurtherReading
Index
Printed and bound in crear Brirain by Anrony Rowe Ltd,
Chipper{nm, Wilts
 Contents

I History andEvidence 9
Il History ard Meaning:What MeaningMeans 32
III Histodcal Imagination:Why Collingwood
Matters 40
IV History andMorality 49
V'Kings andBattles':HolocaustBlindnessand
the HeritageSchool 56
'70
VI Causesin History
VII Biasin History 77
VtrI TheWhigInterpretatiorof History:Why
ButterfieldMatters 83
IX HistoryasStluctwe:Why NamierMatte6 92
X Th€oriesaboutthePast I 00
XI TheEvolutionofHistorical Study:Bedeto
Acton lll
xll EconomicHistory 133
XIII Modem SchoolsofHistory t4'7
Postscript:A Year On 168
FurtherReading t16
Index 178
 I

History andEvidence
History is about evidence.It is also about other things:
hunches,imagination,interpretation,guesswork.Fftst and
foremost, though, comesevidence:no evidence,no his-
lory.
It is about surviving evidence.Evidencethat doesnot
suflive is no use,howeverplentiful it may oncehavebeen.
It is also aboutintrinsicallyfallible evidence.In this it
resemblesmedicinearld the detectionof crime. And it is
about fallible evidenceas interpretedby fallibl€ people;
henceno quesrionof hnalirycaneverarise.
Historical studyrequiresv€rbalevidence,with marginal
exceptions.And this verbal evidenc€,with all respectto
lhe lascination of oral history, is nearly all witten evi-
dsnce.Wdting is a broad term and includesthe study of
coins (numisnatics) and epigraphy(the study of inscrip-
tions),on which much of ancienthistorydepends.tsut,
howeve!broadlyint€ryreted,no writing normallymeans
no history.Pastspeech, for instance,is normallyunknow-
able;a hugedistortion,but oneintrinsicto history.
Studyingthe pastis not possible:it is !o longerthere.
All that can be studiedare pafticular piecesof evidence,
createdin the first placeusually for entirely non-historical

reasons,which happento surviveinto the present.Their
survival,again,usuallyreflectsaccident,whetheraccident
at thetime ofoeationjor accidentin theprocessofpreser-
vationandsurvivalor both.
Nobody, or hardly anyone, createdevidence lor the
cqnvenietrceof future historians. Had they done so, it
would be highly suspect.What ulterior pupose led them
to try to inJluencethe future?The Four Gospelscodvince
becausethey are so fulI of discrepancies,so evidently not
an attempt to impose a cohercnthistorical record for all
ttme.
Those in the prcsent can only study evidence which
€xists in the present.That evid€nceis an infinitesimal part
ofthe evidencewhich once existed.And thefe is a further
obvious limitation. History is about literate societies,and
strongiy tilted, at very least, towards literate people in
litente societies.As such,it is not the study of man; it is
the studyofthe last five minuteson thehumanclock. Since
active literacy hasalwaysbeenthe exception,history can
only speakdirectly of minorities. It is, at least until very
recently, the study of stable, hierarchical, agricultural,
aristocmtic,andrcligioussocietieswhich createandpre-
servewritten evidence.
History is not, in practice,or in any simplesense,the
study of mankilld. It is the study, using somebut not all
methods,of somemenin somesoci€tiesat sometimes.It
is thestudy,especially, ofsocietieswhichpreserve records
and maintain continuity through longJived institutions.
10
History and Evidence
Stonebuildings help enormously; not
stonebuildings wherepaper can be kel
centuries.History, or historical evidenc
on somevery simplephysicalquestion
Londondid not, asit happened, destro
ordsofthe Englishmedievalmonarchy
or had the recordsbeenhouseda mil€ l
thestudyofmedievalhistoryasit hasde
centurywould be uruecognizablydifferr
Here let us pausebriefly. Historyis i
use. It has two meanings.One is the l
which is a humanactivity. The other In
itsell meaningan expanse of time.A h
an expanseof time are not rcmotely co
ofchalk andcheese yet we usethe sa
This doesnotmakelife anyeasier.Whe
'Historyis bunk',didhemeanthathisto
or that the pastis bunk?Perhapshe mear
forgot that today is tomorrow's historica
today as if it were a specialiyvaluab
bardly taking the long view. Thereis no
theparochialismofthe present.
Back to this slipperyword history.:
tory, by the sametoken,hastwo meanin
aboutwhat the pastwas like, aboutwh€
key to the past, some underlying rh1t
classsfuggle asunderlyingall history.
the theory of history is the theory of h(
1l
q
 History ahd Evidence
lb the present. Their Stone buildings help enormously; not all societieshave
whetheraccident stonebuildings where paper can be kept safely down th€
6a process
ofpreser- centuries.History, or historical evidence,tums in the end
on somevery simpiephysicalquestions.The Gr€atFire of
evidence for the London did not, asit happened,destoy the ifiunenserec-
f,rd rhey done so, it ordsofthe Erglish m€dievalmonarchy;but hadit doneso,
purposeled them or had the recordsbeetrhouseda mile nearerthe flames,
Crospelsconvince the studyofmedieval history asit hasdevelopedin the last
so evidently not century would be uffecognizably different.
record for all Here let us pausebriefly. History is a slippery word to
use. It has two meanings.One is the study of the past,
evidencewhich which is a humanactivity. The other meaningis the past
- infinitesimal part itsclf, meaningan expanseof time. A humanactivity and
trd tb€reis a fufiher an expanseof time are not remotely comparable- a case
bare societies,and of chalk and cheese- yet we usethe sameword for both.
lirerarepeoplein This doesnot makelife any€asier.WhenHenry Ford said,
ro.4' of man;it is 'History is bunk' did he meanthat historicalstudyis bunk,
,
LrBarr clock. Since or that the pastis bu.k? Perhapshe meantboth. Perhapshe
roD,history can forgot that todayis tomoffow's historicalpast:singling out
a, ! leastuntil very today as if it were a specially vaLuablefield of study is
i(zl, ag culhual, hardly taking the loqg view. Thereis no parochialismlike
createand pre- theparochialism ofthe present.
Back to this slippery word history. The theory of his-
siryle sense,the toiy, by the sametoken,hastwo m€anings.Oneis theories
sme but not ali aboutwhat the pastwas like, aboutwhetherthereis some
r sometimes. It key to the past, some undedying ftythm: as Marx saw
pres€rvefecords classsftuggleasunderlyingall history. The other senseof
tDsnrutlons. the theory of history is the theory of how one studiesthe

11

past, of how history should be written, of historical
merhod.Again,il is a caseofchalk andcbeese.
Thereis anotherwordto fit in: historiography. In itsell
it is not difficult. Coming ftom a Greekroot (as in graph-
oLogy)it meansthe writing of history, which is simple
enough. Where some minds begin to spin, however, is
when one comesto the history of historiography. This
soundsmoreofa mouthfulthanit is: thehistoryofhistor-
icai study and historical writing is not intrinsically
different fiom the history of an)4hingelse. In fact. in
commonpracticethecumbrousterm'historyofhistorlog-
'historiography' pu.e and
raphy' is usually abridged to
'histori-
simple:an anomalybut a ham essone.Thusthe
o$aphy'ofan issuewill ordinarilymeanthehistoryofthe
development ofthe viewsexpressed by successivehistoii-
ansof that question.
Only the mostaiertavoidsometimes confusingthe two
meaningsof history,andthis book,relyingon the iotelli-
genceof its readersanduponcontext,will not eventry.
That parenthesisbehind us, back to our main theme of
historyandevidence, thistime with examples. Thingscan
be defined in two ways: rvhat they are, and what they are
not. There are somethings which history cerlafuly is not.
It is not a study of the non-humanpast. Such subjectsas
glaciology, deo&ochronology,astronomy,geology,palae-
ontology,subjectswhich can deal with a pasl tar more
distantthananyknown to historians,arenot history. Some
of these,like dendrochronology, the studyof tree dngs,
12
Histoly and Evidenc
interactwith history, sincethe oldesttr(
Bc, and the amual variations in their
structuefor dating.But on thewhole,t
by meansofsciencehaslinle to do wit
Historyis not aboutpreliteratesoc
sayabouthunting,nomadic,pastoral,(
exceptin so far asthey werc observed
cowboy Wild West survives through
imaginationsof seftledsocieti€s.)Ev€
the steppescould write, where could h
ing for futuregenerations? Absenceo
to do with importance or power:thegr
from central Asia, such as fhe Huns €
lack power.But recordsthey did lack
they conquered a civilisationof cities
greatestates andadoptedits ways.
There is a persuasivebut unsQun
which ignoresthis dividing line betw
unwritten.It is a versionoften first e
daysat primaryschool,andvividly ret
ro 10,000Bc, to the end of the Ice,
mixtureof surmise,on anincreasingl
recordin the Middle East,and on tb
historyasseenin museums, It implant
humancontinuitiessincethe Ice Age r
of recordedhistory in truer perspectiv
senseof inexorable materialprogressr
up of history as the prcsentapproa
 H^tory and Evidence

rritten, of historical ilteract with history,sincethe oldesttreesgo backto 4000

-d cheese- Bc, and the annual vadations in their glowth provide a
iography.Injtself, structurefor dating.But on the whole, the studyofthe past
root (as in graph- by meansof sciencehaslittle to do with history.
ry, which is simple History is not aboutpreliterate societies.It haslittle to
to spin,however,rs say abouthunting,nomadic,pastoral,or gatheringpeople,
hisroriography.This cxceptin so far asthey were obsewedliom outside.(The
6e history of histor- cowboy Wild West survives though its impact on the
is not intdnsically ioaginations of settled societies.)Even if a horsemanof
irg else.In fact, in the steppescould rrite, where could he preservehis writ-
'historyofhistoriog- iog for futule generations?Absenceof recordsis nothing
' pure and ro do with importanceor power: th€ greatinvading hordes
'histori- from centnl Asia, such as the Huns and Tartars, did not
c. Thusthe
Gnthe historyof the lack power. But recordsthey did lack - unlessand until
trYsuccessivehistori- rhey conquereda civilisation of cities, bureaucraciesand
gr€3testatesandadoptedits ways.
confusingthe two There is a persuasivebut wlsound version of history
Elying on the intelli- which ignores this dividing line befwe€nthe writte and
will noteventry. uowritten. lt is a version often first encounteredin early
ro our mainthemeof daysat p mary school,andvividly retained.It looks back
qampl€s.Thingscan ro 10,000 Bc, to the end of the Ice Age. It draws on a
re. andwhat they are mixtwe of sumise, on an increasinglylong archaeological
Igory certainly is not. .ecord in the Middle East, and on the picturesque.It is
Fst. Such subjectsas history asseenin museums.It implaotsa valuablesenseof
, geolos/, palae- humancontinuitiessincethe Ice Age which putsthepeiod
with a past far more of recordedhistory in truer perspective.It implants,too, a
arcnothistory.Some senseof inexorablemate al Fogress,ard ofthe speeding-
6. study of tree rings, up of history as the present approaches.But, for all its

merits, the elementarystory of early man, particularly if
made coherent,is not so much history as the context in
which history may, or may not, have occlrrred.It is also a
golden dream of a world unmuddiedby beliefs, events,
intentions,thoughts,follies,all creatures of witten testl-
mony. Early, pre-literate man, unlike us, makes no
mistakes,and cannot be wlong. There lies lhe greatest
discontinuitybetweenthe accidentally preliterateandthe
accidentallyliterateepochs.
History is not archa€ology,for thevery goodreasonthat
properly speakingthe latter is a method not a body of
knowledge.Unlike history, it is focusedon material ob-
jects not thoughts.ln theory, and often in plactice, it is
applicableto al1ysocietyor period.It is only coiloquially
that archaeologyhas come to apply specifically to pre-
iit€rate societies or to prehistory. Archaeology,beiog a
method,can be, and is, used to study literatemedieval
socigties,or even advancedsocieties,as in the caseof
'
indust al archaeologywith its loving resurfectionofrusty
steamenginesandVictorian factories.
Shouldthe histodanhave roots in prehistory?Emphat-
ically,yes:deepones,for prehistoryis only historyminus
an alphabet,and the infancy of society was marked by
many changesf'armoresaiientthanthe arrival of writing -
considerfor mstancethe domestication of wild animals,
the inventionoftextiles,or somewholly unrecorded great
event like the lndo-Europeancultwal expansionthrough-
out most of Eurasia,the greatestof political events,
I4
History and Evidenc
comparableonly to the rmiversalspra
gapbetweenprehistoryandhistory is a
of study,not a gap iq what went on in l
History is not just aboutevidence,ot
ing evidence.To take anotherway ol
either about too much evidence,or to
first: we know, more or lessexactly, tl
printed in England.Between 1475,th€
lish printing, and 1640, we have 36,
1641and 1700,a turther 100,000titl
eighteenthc€ntury a turther 350,000
cluding all works printed in English
works in a foreign languagepdnted in
In short, for the modem or early mo
dence,at least for some things, is su
iong doesit taketo read and analysea
this superabundance takes into accou
evidence,books;the questionofunpri
aoddiarieswouldraisejustthesamese
onenot so readily quantified.
Thereis, aboutmodemtimes,just I
and contrarily about ancient times thr
evidence.To hav€tie ight amountof
no less, is by far the least likely poss
not acange rnattersto suit presentne(
have?And evenif the evidencewere
we were looking for, that in itself shou
rat, for nothing canbe more suspecttt
l f
 History and Evidence

Balr, particularlY if comparableonly to the wriversal spreadof firearms. The

as the context io gapbetweenFehistory andhistory is a gapin our methods
ccurred. It ls alsoa of study,not a gapin what went on in the past.
by beliefs, events, History is not just aboutevidence,or €venaboutsurviv-
of written t€sti- ing evidence.To take anotherway of looking at it, it is
dike us, makes no either about too much evidence,or too little. Too much,
fbe lies the greatest fust: we know, mole or lessexactly, the numberofbooks
y preliterate and the printed in England.Between 1475,the begirmingof Eng-
lish printing, and 1640,we have 36,000 tifles; between
rqy goodreasonthat 1641 and 1700,a turther 100,000titles appeared;in the
-tbd not a body of eighteenthcentury a further 350,000titles appeared,in-
Sorsed on material ob- cluding all works printed in English anylvhere,and all
d€n in practice, it is works in a foreign larguageprinted in the British Empire.
k is only colloquially In short, for the modem or early modem histodan, evi-
specificallyto pre- dsnce, at least for some things, is superabundant.(How
Archaeology,being a long doesit take to read and analysea single book?) And
ody literatemedieval this superabmdancetakes into accountonly one q4te of
as in the case of evidence,books;the questionofunprinted papers,lette$,
resurrectionofrusty anddiarieswould raisejust the samesenseof s\rrfeit,albeit
ons not so readily quantified.
D Fehistory? Emphar Therc is, aboutmodemtimes,just too much evidence;
is or y history minus and contradly about ancient times there is just too little
Gi€{y was marked by evidence.To havethe right amountof evidence,no moreJ
6e arrival of witing- no less, is by far the least likely possibility. The past did
}m of wild animals, not arang€ natters to suit presentoeeds- why should it
tbolly unrecorded$eat have?And even if th€ evidencewerejust right, just what
expansionthrough- we were looking for, that in itself shouldmakeooe smell a
of political events, rat, far nothing canbe morc suspectthan evidencethat is

IJ

q

Justdght. The questionof ovenbundanceand its reverse
is, to put it mildly, somethingof a difficulty.
One exteme caseconcemshumannature itself. Here
history- the past is an expedmentthat was cut shortjust
asit was getting interesting.One candra\r no conclusions
about what man would be like if different localities had
beenleft to go their own way, becausethe processof
global convergencein the last four centurieshas stopped
the experiment.Thusthe Incaswerecut shortin 1530afte.
only a century; the Aztecs after a shorter ascendancy.
History has to make do with but two great written tradi-
tions, the Eurasianandthe EastAsian,a tdfle in relation to
all the corrynunitiesthat have existed,and the still larger
number that would have existed but for Eurasianexpan-
sion.On suchsmallevidencc, nojudgmentcanbe reached
asto man'spotentialvariousness, or lackof it. Historyis a
badlydesignedexperiment.
Considertwo otherextremecaseswherethe histodan
doesnot have what he wants, but what he gets.First, the
ancient \a'o.1d.The Roman Empire was a large affair, a
huge,lit€rate,rationailyadministered, urbanizedfact, ex-
tendingoverat leastsix centudes. Fromit theresurviveten
miilionwordsin Latin,and100miliion in Greek.Ofthese,
907oin eachcasearepost-Chdstian. Had jt beenpagans
who decidedwhat survivedfrom antiquity, the proportion
of ChristianaIIdnon-Ckistianmatedalmighthavelooked
very different.
Of the ten million wordsin Latin, rwo miliion concem
l6
History and Eyidenc
Romanlaw, becauselawy€mfoundtl
ing.Only onemillion arepre-Christia
wordsofpre-ChristianGreek,two mili
ical writer 'Galen'. To swvive the l
advisableto sticktowriting legalor mr
be a Christian.The remotepasthasal
remoterpast.
The remotepasthasalreadydeterm
and shapeof what swvives.The Bibl
book.But thatit is a book at all, arise
about200ADofbook inplaceof scro
of pap''russcrolls,it was physically
single book that one could call the N(
available tecbnologyof the day mark<
literarypossibility.
In our own time, the technical b,
changed beyondrecognition. For four c
of evidencehad remainedremarkably
ters, letters.(The monasticchronicle
dissolutionof the monasteries.) Then
andcracks.Lettersbecametelephon
lherehadalwaysbeen,but puttiDgcor
was no longernecessary. Evidence,o
increased by theuseofthe taperecord
techniqu€first adoptedin the U.S.A.i
to createnon-contempoftrneous eviden
powerto checkit againstcont€mpor
ished.(Thedifficuhywith oralhistory
t'7
 History and Eidence
andits reverse Roman law, becauselawyers found them worth preserv-
ing. Only onemillion areprc-Christiar. Ofthe ten million
Datureitself. Here words ofpre-Christian Greek,lwo million areby the med-
lhat wascut shortjust ical writer 'Gal€n'. To survive the Dark Ages, it was
&aw no conclusions advisableto stick to writing legal or medicalworks, andto
alff(f,ent localities had be a Chdstian. The rcmote past has alreadycensoredthe
hcause the prccess of remoterpast.
Gaturies has stopped The remotepasthasalready detenninedeven the fbrm
c|.trshortin 1530after and shapeof what survives.The Bible may be a divine
r sborter ascendalcy. book. But that it is a book at all, arisesftom the invention
tro great written tradi about200ADofbooksin placeof scrolls.Insteadofa h€ap
a trifle in relation to of papyms scrolls, it was physically possible to have a
aod the still larger single book that one could call the New Testament-The
b for Eurasianexpan- avaiiable technologyof th€ day marked out the limits of
t canbe reached literarypossibility.
a lack of it. History is a In our own time, the technical basis of history has
changedbeyondrecognition.For four centuies, the nature
where lhe historian of evidencehad remainedremarkably stable:letters, let-
rbar he gets.First, the ters. letters. (The monastic chronicie vanishedwith the
was a large affair, a dissolution of the monasted€s.)Then the mirror shivers
urbanizedfact, ex- aod clacks. Lefters becametelephonecalls; conversation
From it theresurvrveten there had alwaysbeen,but putting conversationon paper
in in Greek.Ofthese, was no longer necessary.Evidence, of a new kind, was
b- Had it beenpagans increasedby the useofthe taperecorderin oral history, a
techniquefi$t adopt€din the U.S.A. in 1948.The power
ial might have looked to createnon-contemporaneous evidetrceincreased,asthe
power to check it againstcontemporaryevidencedimin-
two million cortcem ished.(The diffrculty with oral history is not that old men

t'7

forget, but that they rememberwith startling clarity whar
they wrote, misleadingly,long ago.)
The twentieth-centurystate genemtespaper as never
before. It then destroys it as never before. The United
Kmgdomproduces about100milesofgovcmmentrecords
eachyear,of whichonly onemile is kept.We des oy, not
to hide the futh, but becausew€ lack room. Again, the
crudelyphysicalelementpredominates
Hiding the truth neverthelesshascometo matter more.
In the 1960s,iespondingto the cry of 'More Openness'.
HaroldWilson'sgovernment changedtheFifiy-YearRule
govemingaccessto official papers,to a thirty-yearrule.
Now a differenceoftwenty yearsmay not seemmuch,but
to thosein high placesit meantrhatali they wrotewould
probably comebeforepublic scmtiny duringtheir iifetime,
andvery possiblyduringtheir activecareer.In thosecir-
cumstances, what is called'writing for the dossier'is
boundto occur on a largescaie.The dispadtybetween
evidenceand reality,alwaysthereevenwhen it wasnot
expectedthatletterswouldbc seenby others,hasbecome
an abyss.To thos€who iike to think that they know what
went on, th€ Thi.ty-Year Rule was a greatstepiorward; to
those who want to know what really went on, it was a
disaster.Records,likc compost,arebestweli rotted.
Men write lettersbecausethey areapart.So long asthe
holdersof power lived in country houses,or on great
estates,they had of necessityto write to their own kind.
Whenin the capital,asfor the Lordon politicalandsocial
l8
Histoyyand Evidenc(
season, therewas lessreasonto write,
anlnvay. For consideredcorresponde
find that thelong p€riodof rusticitybe
and late January,whenparliamentdid r
dogbarked,evokedmorcpoliticalevid
months of spring and summer. In a
houses,th€ volume,fr€quency,anddep
in inverseratioto the sedousness ofev(
That is a world we havelost. We c
'normal' history,because we no ionge
society.Wtether therecanbe history ur
century el€ctronicconditions,remains
only safeassumptionis drat it will bea
to post-Renaissance historicalstudy,ab
vidualmotiveis concemed. A studyb.
word cannotsurvivethe marginalizatio
beonthevergeof anewprehistory, witl
intdcate,intimateknowledgeofthepas
interlude.Flectonic comqunicationl
The fashion for open accessmeansno
production of evidence,and its mass
equallyindustrialized scale,meansno h
history meansno history, or at least,
history of materialmattersat the expen
History is aboutprimary soluces.Al1
wereprimarysources once,evenifthe
survive.Indeed,a primarysourceis a
which hasnot y€t beeninterpreted.Alt I
t9

with startling cla ty what
hg ago.)
daie generatespaper as never
I as never before. The United
100milesofgovemmentrecords
ce mile is kept. We desaoy,not
we lack rcom. Again, the
predominates.
hascometo mattet mole.
to the cry of 'Morc Openness',
changedthe Fifty-Year Rule
dcial papers,to a thirty-year rule.
yearsmaynot seemmuch,but
it meantthat all they wrote would
prblic scrutinyduringtheirhferime,
bg their active career.In those cir-
'writing for the
b called dossier' is
a large scale.The disparity between
; always there even when it was not
would be seenby others.hasbecome
who Iike to think thattheyknow what
Year Rule was a grcatstepforward; to
b know what really went on, it was a
like comDost.are bestwell rotted.
becausetley are apart.So long as the
lived in country houses,or on grcat
of necessityto wdte to their own kind
as for th€ LondonDolitical and social
Histo/y ahd Eidence
season,ther€ was lessreasonto wite, for they met daily
an].vay. For consideredcofiespoodenc€,one may well
find that the long period ofrusticity betweenmid-August
and late January,whenparliamentdid not sit andhardly a
dog barked,evokedmore political evidencethanthe busy
months of spring and surnner. In a world of co\rntry
houses,the volume,frequency,anddepthofletters may b€
in inverseratio to the seriousnessofevents.
That is a world we have lost. we can no longer write
'!ormal' history, becausewe no longer have that kind of
society.Whethertltere canbe history underlatetwentieth-
century electronicconditions,rcmainsto be seen,but the
only safeassumptionis that it will bear little resemblance
to post-Renaissance historical study,eboveall whereindi-
vidual motive is concemed.A study basedon the written
word cannotsurvivethe marginalizationofpaper.We may
be on the vergeof a newprchistory,with the eraofserious,
intricate,intimateknowl€dgeofthe pastmerelya fortunate
interlude. Electronic comniunication means no history.
The fashion for op€n accessmeansno history. The mass
production of evidence,and its mass destructlonon an
equally industrializedscale,meansno history. Unrecorded
history aeans no history, or at least, as in Fehistory, a
history of materialmattersat the expenseof thought.
History is aboutprimary sources.All secondarysources
werepdmary sourcesonce,evenifthe originalsno longer
survive. Indeed,a primary source is a secondarysource
which hasnot yet beeninterpreted.All primary sorrcesarc
19
 History and Eyiden
suspecUtheir deshnyis to addto misunderstanding. When lI hc will neverbe caughtout, hasal
the great archives of Venice were openedin the early
b deceive,not by plain lying, bu
niaeteenthcentury,the classicopeningofa paudora,sbox
c his part in things.
which offered to tell all, it took tjme and rcflection to
Aogr€ss in histodcal studiesin thi
discemthat ambassadors' reportstell us asmuch aboutthe Elied heavilyon using unprint
ambassador,as aboutthe country discussed,and that the
Archiveswere sesnas a m(
most wily Venetian,preciselybecausehe was a wily Ven-
becamethe thing to do'. S(
etian, would seeso alien an institution as the Elizabethan
Iiv€rsity promotionsdeperdeduf
parliamentwith perplexedandunseeingcycs.
Primary sourcesareneverimocett, neverabovetemp-
Furlary souces,but onesprint
to s€eman armchairhisto an,a
tation, never undeservingof a sceptical eye. No
Thecult ofthe orimarvsoulceb
eye-witnessevsr standsup to comparisonwith another
ctrlt of the manuscriDtarchive. A
eye-witressofthe sameeveot.(Theessentialqualityofa
a s€qet is a powern mot
reliable eye-witnessaccount is that there should be no
said.all the seqets are alreadv
other eye-witnesses.)Y€t, when compar€dto memoirs_
f5s is Aueat leastirl that thereis an
admittedly not a demandingcomparison- thoseprimary
clie€m betweenalchival source
sourceswritten in the beliefthat nobodyexceptthe recipi_
Lss readily gasp€d than their po
ent will ever seethem, do perhapsenjoy a certain extra
'-rr€s, Hansard.andthebooksoftl
credibility. In this category fall most of the diplomatic
Factical value: that The Timesi
corespondenceand political lefters on which so mucb
indexed,are the past at
post-Renaissance history depends.Even these, however said that it might take a
private andsecret,cannotbe viewed asplail statementsof
to regain the knowledge {
fact. They r€presentattemptsto influence,to persuade,lo
oewspaperreaderhad at i
impress,to convince,to manipulate.They arenot neutral-
of newspapers, andof Hansard
And dia es?They may havebeenwritten for nobodybut points of the historical rcvolu
the writer. This one rarely knows; and such chastity of
The searchfor hidden trut
motive is not supportedby the fact of their preservatioD.
Fint, Berhapseven against I
Still, a *riter, whetherof diaries or letters.who believ€s archiveoftomorrow.
20 2l

dc$nt is to addto misunderstanding. When
tr\fi of Venice w€re openedin the early
[r.r:]. rheclassicopeningofa Pandora's box
d :o rell all, it took time and reflectionto
nbassadors'reportstell us asmuch abontthe
a! abourthe country discussed,and that the
roeiian.p.eciselybecause he wasa wily Ven-
s.e so alien an institution as the Flizabethar
n$ perplexedandunseeingeyes.
oulcesareneverinnocent,neverabovetemp-
er undeservingof a scepticaleye No
e\er slandsup to comparisonwith anolher
oithe sameevent.(Theessential qualityofa
-$imessaccountis that there shouldbe no
tmeJses.) Ye(.whencompared Lomemtlir\
rol ,l demandlng compari.on lhoseprimdr)
renrnthebelieftbainobodyexcepttherecipr-
t seethem, do perhapsenjoy a certaf extra
ln rhis category fall most of the dipLomatic
nce and political lette$ on which so much
sancehistorydepends.Even these,however
secret,cannotbeviewedaspiainstatements of
epresent attemptsto influence,to persuade, to
.on\ ince, to manpulate. They are not ncutral.
'I They may havebeenwritten for nobody but
This one rarely knows; and such chastity ol
.r supponedb1 the lacl of their presenalion
rer.*'hetherof diariesor letters,who believes
20
History and Evidence
rhath€ will neverbe caughtout, hasall the geater tempta-
tion to deceive,not by plain lfng, but by putting a good
faceon his part in things.
Progressin histodcal studies in the last two centunes
has reiied heavily on using unginted archival primary
sources.Archives were seen as a meansof grace. This
approachbecame'the thing to do'. Schoolexamsmimed
it, university promotionsd€pendedupon it. Gibbon, who
usedprimary sources,but ones pdnted by prcdecessoG,
cameto seeman armchair historian, a model of what not
lo be. The cult ofth€ primary sourcebecameequatedwith
rbe cult of the manuscriptarchive. After all, the wish to
discover a secrct is a poweitrrl motive. Yet, as A.J.P.
Taylor said,all the secretsare alreadyin print
This is tlue at leastin that thereis an imbalancein status
and esteembetweenarchival sources,whose drawbacks
are less readily graspedthan th€it positive qualities, and
fhe Times,lIurs?,d,an,d thebooksoftheperiod.Onepoinl
is of practicai value: that The Times ar\dHansard,being
mericulouslyindexed,are the past at its most accessible.
Butterfield said that it might take a hundred years for
historians to regain the knowledge of the past that an
lntelligentoewspaperreaderhad at the time. Iltetligent
ieadingofnewspapers, andofHansard,hasbeenoneofthe
,.\eakerpoints of the historical revolution of the last two
.enturies. The searchfor hidden truth has led to a bias
against print, perhapseven against books; print is the
lenetian archiveof tomorrow.
2l

Perhapsthis is the point at which to considerthe three
degreesofhistorical subtletyin accessingprimary sources.
The first stageis plain credulousunsubtlety:believing the
evidence.This meansbelievingwhat peoplesay about
themselves,believing statementsof principle,political
speeches,what you read in the newspapers,andbelieving
whalihe policeor rherrbisroricalpredecessors sayin coun.
on oathor elsewherc.This wasofien not sonaiveasit may
souod. In a world of gentlemen,where a reputation for
sharp practice was countel-productive,taking a gentle-
men'sword astuth wasnatwal,in its way fuirly sensiblc,
andin itselfservedto raiseexpectations for thebetter.
The seconddegreeofsubtlety went to the otherextreme
of disbeliel disbelievingthe newspapers, the police,the
,poiiticians,disbelieving whatpeoplesayaboutthemselves
(with the lingeringexceptionofN4rGladstone), disbeliev-
ing aboveall statementsof principle. This view of things
will alwaysbe associated with the$eat work ofSir Lewis
Namierin the 1920s.In essence, he said,or was held to
havesaid,thatpoliticalmenwerecreatuesofambitiono.
habit,that principiewasthe figleafofthe politicalopera-
tor, andthatsloganswereconsequences, not causes, ofthe
animalpushing andshovrng o{'polirics.
Thethird de$eeofsubtletyrejectsthisview asdocrrin-
ate, nanow, aboveali unsubtle.To thoseon thesegiddy
heights,all evidenceis evidence;thereis no suchthing as
evidencewhich is not admissible-All evidencetells us
something, is a symptomof something, is notto bebrushed
22
Hittory a d Evtden.
aside.Every sloganis a fact. A polit
outright charlatanismliom start to fini
rentsaside,its timing, its rhetofic, its
maybe crucialbits ofthejigsaw;ands
versionsof charlatanism, it is import
was chosenrather than another.Omi!
d€alce,asmuch asthe mostpalpablefa
a letteromitsto say,may bethe mosti
it. Silenceis evidence.
Every dog has its day. In the worl
historicalscholarship grewup, the p(
bore all before it. It was documentstl
historians' careers;documents,where
were thoughtto lie. DocumentshaveI
the last two centuriesjbut thesecentl
ical. Today,the placeto look for se
historians,in the press.This is ler4 i)
caseofthe press,witl] goodreason.On
NewspaperLibrary of the Blitish Li
remote north London suburb of Coli
oneconsulta wide run ofnational and
wise, Iibrades hold The Times ard pe
but wdting history from TheTimes,an
the history of opinion,is necessar
ways,practicehasdetermined princip
of th€ primacy of the tuly 'auth€nt
arises,at leastin modemBritishhisto
23
 History and Evidence

to considerthe three aside.Every sloganis a fact. A political speechtrtay be

Eg pnmarysources. outdght chaflatanismfrom start to finish, but puttmg con-
: believing the tents aside,its timing, its rhetoric, its choiceof audience,
peoplesay about may be crucial bits ofthejigsaw; andsincetherearem,my
d Fitrcipte, political versions of charlatanism,it is important that one version
andbelieving was chosenrather than arother. Omissions,too, are evi-
sayrn cowt, dence,asmuch asthe mostpalpablefact: what a spe€chor
mt sonaive asit trtay a letter omits to say,Inay be the most importantfact about
rb€ a reputation for it. Silenceis evidence.
fu€, taking a gentle- Every dog has its day. In the world in which modem
is way fairly sensible, historical scholarshipgrew up, the Festige of documents
for thebetter. bore all before it. It was documentsthat madeor unmade
to the otherexffeme historians' carcersidocuments,wherethe ultimate secrets
the police, the were thoughtto lie- Documentshav€ had a goodrun over
sayaboutthemselves the last two centuries;but thesecennrriesmay be untlp-
Gladstone),disbeliev- ical. Today, the place to look for secretsis, for British
This view ofthings historians,in the press.This is tera incognrla,and in the
grcatwork of Sir Lewis caseofthe press,with goodreason.Only in onelihary, the
b sai4 or was held to NewspaperLibrary of the'Bdtish Library, in the rather
qlauues of ambition or remote north London suburb of Colindale, Hendon, can
ofthe politicalopera- one consulta wide run ofnational andLocalpapers.Other-
not causes,ofthe wise, libraries hold The Times and perhapsa few others,
but -rdting history from TheTimes,arldespeciallywriting
rhis view asdoctrin- the history of opinion,is necessarilyprecarious.As al-
Io ftose on thesegiddy ways, practicehasdeterminedprinciple, and the principle
6se is no suchthhg as of the primacy of the truly 'authentic' unprinted source
All €videncetells us arises,at leastin modemBritish history, quite largely from
is not to bebrushed

23

very ordinaryconsiderations of practicability.Hendonis
far, its newspaperholdingsvolumitous, and life is short.
History is incorrigibly male, though much less so than
it was.That is not to saythat it will remainso in the future,
still lessthatit should.ltis notto saythatwomenmattered,
or matter,lessthanmen,whateversucha statementmight
mean.It doesnot deny that the body of evidencerelaling
to womenis large,depe ding on time a d place.It doesnot
denythe hugerecentexpansio[ in the amountofhistorical
writing aboutwomen.
I It meansone thing onlyi that women have charac-
teristicallycrcatedless evidence,so obviouslyso that
argumentupon the point is idle. It may meanthal women
hadbefterthingsto do thanlive their lives on pap€r.At any
rate, the pasl is inconigibly male, as it is inconigibiy
afistocratic,incorigibly religious, incorrigibly unfair. To
thoscwho object,therecanbe only oneanswer.Things are
astheyare,andnot aswe wouldhavethembe.
Thatwomenplaymen'sroiesonly addsto thedifficulty
ofassessing theplaceofwomeninhistory.WleD a woman
does heavy manual labour, or succeedswithout obvious
effort on her part through mal€ rules to a crown or other
high position,thereis nothingspecificallyfemaleabout
herrole. The questionofheiressesis important:throughout
history, the great majoity of prominent women werc so
not becausethey had the talentsof a Virginia Woolf, the
will ofa FlorenceNightingale,or theinspirationofa Joan
ofArc. but for no better r€asonthan that thei fath€r had
History and Evidenc
died, leaving themwithout brothers.If
is becausethe comtemporaryworld is
history, perhapsnowhere more so tl
women. In the deeppast, however, tl
individualwomen,andmany of those
have offen been,and perhapshad to I
tmaiesmediateconflict,womenknow
plexily mles: Qu€€nVictoria, wife, rI
untutorcdmiss,not to sayvoluminousd
galoreof deepfemininity, gobably m
low-ruler Elizabeth I. But as the lat
women do play male roles under male
male shoes,andthis complicatesany
thingsare asth€y are,andnot aswe (or
wouldhav€thembe;it is abit lateto se
rhepast in accordancewith modernsta
History is not aboutyouth. History i
the relatively old. The averagehistoric
canimaginesucha person,is probably
which ardows hale cooled and most a
to be what they ar€, and to take thing!
Here then we find the great divide bet
history: literatureis aboutbeing under
onemay choos€.Historywill thentak
better job at saying what being over
arbitrary, for all will rccall King Lear
youth, asa conditionto be bome,is no
can do much td explore. On individr]
)5
 History and Evidence
. Heqdon is die4^leavingthemwithout brotherc.
rd life is shon. If it is not so today, it
ts trecause
rhecomtemporary world ts very unlrkerhatof
qrb lessso than olsrory.perhapsnowheremore
so tian in the caseof
r sotr thefuture, y"i:i. rhe deeppasr, however, the most prominent
maftered, I
I Statement migbt l19l]td:"t yor"", -d manyof thosecreating
evidence,
andperhaps
had to be,honorary
mates
gvidenc€relating I:: :ft*,!"-,
(males mediate conflict, women know better).Here
Flac€.It doesnol corB_
ll"j1ry Yt, eueenVictoria,wife,mother,
widow,and
ofhistorical untutoredmiss, not to sayvoluminousdiarist,left
evijence
Gmininiry,probabtymoreso ran
have chalac- ,g:1".":r*:p ber fet_
row-rulerElizabetbf. But as the
obviouslyso that latter namesuggests,
womelr do play malg roles under
E€an that women male rules, do step into
rhiscomplicares anyassessmerr.
on paper.At any 1",]:_r**.and Again,
trrngsareaslbeyare.andnot as\re (or
r it is incorigibly modemfeminism.l
wguld havethembe; it is a bit late
igibly unfair. To to setaboutremodelling
the past in accordancewith modem
mswer.Tbingsare standards.
Historyis notaboutyoutb.Hisrory
lbem be. . is inco.rigittyuUout
Iberelarivelyold.Tbeaveragebistorical ,l
dds to the ditlculry indiviauql,;6enq ll
canlmagmesucha pe$on, is probably
. Whena woman aboutSO,un ug" ui
which ardourshavecooledani most
wrthoutobvious are satisliedenough
ro be what theyare.aDdto rake
Io a crown or other tbingsas lbey lurd rhem.
Hererhenwe find the greatdivide
bJtrveenltrerarureand
female about history: literatureis aboutbeing under
: thloughout 30, or under40, as
one may,choose. Historywill thenta-keover-anddo
womenwere so oerer Job-al sayingwbar being over a far
I Virginia Woolf, the 40 is like. This is

I
arDurary.lor all will recaliKing
ilspiration ofa Joar Learand prospero.But
youlh, as a conditioqto be bome,
is not a topic that history
that their father had can do much to explore. On individual
emotion, at least

outsidethepublicdomain,historyspeaks with a quavering
anduncertainvoice.lnhistory,boydoes$ot meetgirl; that
is, thereis a wholesideoflife whosedeepest truthsareto
be foundin the realmof imagimtiveliterature,andthese
huths are on the whole the tuths of youth. I{istory picks
up where literature leaves off, and that meanswith the
relativelyold.
Historyis aboutwinners,not losers.Inbroadtems, this
is becausethe wiDners\rfite the history. ln nanow te.ins,
it is becausethoserisking the gallowswould havebeen
foolish to dairmthemselveson paper.Thus the private
papersofthe Chartistswer€ scanty,while for theif middle-
class contemporaries, the Anli-Com Law League,an
almost daily epistolaryrecord oftheir irmer thoughtssur-
vrves.The reason? The Chartistsfacedprison,theLeague
did not; thoughlack ofoffices andbusiness habitsplayed
a part-
Again,in ThomasPakenham's Zre Yearof Liber4,.on
':e',er touched.So the
the great 1798uprisingin Ireland,he writes of finding
I 0,000documentson the govemmentside,fiied underthe
heading'RebellionPapers',but oftracingonly 100surviv-
ing rebel documents.In such cases,history hasto be told
as experiencedby the governmeft and their informants,
irrespective ofwhereone'sown slnnpathies may lie.
Anotherloser,of a very differentkind, has beenthe
LabourPartyin modemBritishhistory,andit is especially
Labour ministers of the hrst two or thtreegenerations
whosepapersare missing.Their houseswere smallJat
26
History and Evidenc
a;r bl Conservativestandards,and th
- s9ace.Even regardingrecent reco
3.:!sh Cabinet Mihisters 1900-195l,
-i- qas siili hotJreportedthat .We ha
rrcers of 323 CabinetMinisters.lo 7
r-;.iion ofthe collectionsseemcerta
>ome losersremain forcver in oul I
!.11I.ner. That is becausethey were lo
':c oictrlre we hold is a pictue qeated
I .'! Ir is thep€rsonasseenby theautho
1{ drepersonastheyreallywere.It is 1
.:ce:e.handle,andpreserye theeviden
:--.1-sor poiicerecords.Yet Cranme
:*-si,opbumt at the stakewith all he ha
i =e classiccaseof thelosetwhowasri
i-..:orious: his liturgy, the Book of
c.r:red theEnglishmind for four centur
=<n asnothingelsedid,andreacheda r
distinctionbeh
tse:s may be far from simple.
\\'anderingintoparenthesis for a mo
j-::ous caseof that universalfigure,
--alisrrate-He may be conscientious
t
!:iSrtious too; he certainlywantsto s
:<':::ralauthorities,wlroseonly localre
r:"i he is not inmune from temptat
-..ndon, or Paris,or Madrid, will th(
!.,iinist side.He will speakofgeat dan
2'7

Feaks with a quavering
doesnot meetgirl; that
deepesttruths are to
ive literature,and these
ofyouth. HistoryPiaks
r3d that meaoswitlt the
lFs. In broadtems, this
history.In narrowterms,
gallows would have been
c p€per.Thusthe pnvate
, while for their middle-
Arti-Com Law League, an
ofth€ir innertloughtssur-
i*s facedprison, the League
md businesshabitsplaYed
's TheYeu of Liberty,or\
Leland, he writes of finding
side,filed underthe
, butoftracingonlY100surviv-
cases,historyhasto b€ told
and their informants,
own sympathiesmay he.
Gy different kiod, has been the
&irish history, andit is especially
first two or three generahoos
Their houseswerc small, at
26
History and Evidence
leastby Conservativestandards,and thsi( widovr'swanted
lhe space,Even legarding recent r€cords,the authorsof
British Cabinet Ministers 1900-1951, writing while the
tlail was still hot, rcportedthat 'We haveried to find the
papersof 323 Cabinet Ministers. In 73 casesloss or de-
structionofthe collectionsseemcetain '
Somelosersremain forever in ow mind: Joanof Arc,
Cranmer.That is becausethey vr'ercloserswho won. But
the pictue we hold is a pictu€ qeated by hostile authori-
ties. It is the pelsonasseenby the authoritieswho endures,
not the personastheyreally were. It i$ the authoritieswho
create,handle,andpreservethe evidence,aboveall in state
trials or police records.Yet Cranmer, the humble arch-
bishopbumt at the stakewith all he had lived for in ruin,
is the classiccaseofthe loserwho wasreally incomparably
victorious: his liturgy, the Book of Common Prayer,
shapedthe Englishmind for four centuries,unitedEnglish-
men asnothing elsedid, andrcacheda world Shakespeare
oever touched. So the distinction between wimers and
los€rsnay be far ftom simple.
Wanderinginto parenthesisfor a moment,considerthe
cu ous case of that universal figure, the conscientious
magisaate.He may be conscientious,but perhapsa little
ambitious too; he celtaidy wants to standwell with tie
cetrtralautlorities, whoseonly local representativehe is,
and he is not imsune from temptation. His letters to
London, or Paris, or Madrid. will thercforc err on the
alarmistside.He will speakof greatdangers;knowing that
2'7

he cannotlose.Ifthe dangersdo not takeplace,that speaks
well for his zeal,his coffiol ofthe situation;ifthings go
badly wrong, he will at ieastbe on recordashaving giveir
due waming, and no one will be able to impugn his fore-
sight.The manon the spot(behe magisrrate, diplomatist,
or soldier)preciselybecause he is on the spot,is subjectto
his very own specialtemptation,perhapsunconscious or
habitual.The paradoxof the conscientiousmagistrate
should ever be in our mind when we taik of the value of
- pnmary sources.
History is aboutevidence,but only about evidencewe
approveof. Evidencewe disapproveol might aswell not
exist. We decide,even before looking at it, what can be
evidence ard what not. Thus with miracles: thus with
witchcraft.
The bodyofevidencein favourofmiraclescouldnot be
of higherquality.It is basedon rhetestimonyof eye-wit-
nesses.It is contemporafleous. It is massivein bulk. It
comes from educatedmen. It is often entirely disinter-
ested.It varieslittle over a large numberof centuries.
There is little evidence contrary to the idea of special
providences,andperhapstherecould not be.Thehistorical
evidencefor miraculousinterv€ntioncould not be weight-
ier.Our decisionto disrega.dit.isnot a historicaldecision.
not an inductionfrom the evidenc€asit is. It is basedon
our non-historical or a priori belref (for beiief it is) that
there is no suchthing asthe miraculous.
The same with witchcraft. For two centuriesthe best
28
History andEvidence
ltrinds gave it oedence: Shakespeare
*hat right do we look to him ason rhe(
of profoundesttruth, and on the other
lowed, perhapspropagated,the mor
tallacies?The evidencefor witchcraftir
e\ en higher standingthanthat for mtacl
evidence,evidencegiven in court, fu
neouslyrecorded,a matterof dueproces
\ ery widely acceptednotj ustby popular
official mind. It is thus evidence,how
:ainedor subjectto ulterior motive, whi
in form from that given in other legal ca
If we disbelieve
in witchcraft,it is des
tlistory is about evidence,but we decit
cultue of our daydecides,what to exalu
It is not lack of evidence, but a genera
rhat suchthhgs oughtto be untrue,witt
ofthe existence ofUFOSandiheBermu
contend.Evidencemeansevidencewe a
History is aboutevidence.Historyas
ashistoryasscience, hasto respectits co
is inescapablytied to the wlitten word. \
word stops,there history stopsand geo
begins.Landscapeand architectue, tho
sowces,need the suwival of past wor
meaning.(Henc€the mystery of the Spl
cludesimportantnon-literatecivilizati
unimportantliter;te ones.Historyis not
29

;o nottakePlace,thatspeaks
of lhe situation;if thingsgo
ce oDrecordas having given
.'-l b€ able to impugn lfs fore-
'le be magistrate,diplomatist,
re is onthe spot.is subjectto
g{,3lion, perhapsunconscious or
..: 'ie conscientious magistrate
Gl *hen we talk of the valueof
e. but only aboutevidencewe
.{ disapproveol might aswell not
b.for€ looking at it, what can be
rr Thus with miracles; thus with
rn favourofmiraclescouldnot be
s :lasedon the testimonyofeye-wit-
. It is massivein bulk. It
It is ofien entirelydisjnter-
.i\er a largenumberof centunes.
:e contary to the idea of special
rherecouldnotbe.Thehistorical
;-onsinte entioncouldnot be weight-
:isregardit.isnot a historicaldecision,
#.fl the er idenceas it is. Tr is ba:ed on
-y d p/ioli belief {for belief it is) that
tnl asthe miraculous.
rircbcraft.For two centuriesth€ best
History and Evidence
minds gave it credence:Shakespeare, for instance.By
whatright do we look to him aso11 the onehanda source
of prolbundesttruth, and on the other a man who swal-
lowed, perhapspropagated,the most transparentof
tallacies?The evidencefor witchcraftis in somewaysof
".venhigher standingthanthat for miracies.For it is swom
evidence,evideocegiven in court, fully and instanta-
reouslyrecorded, a matterofdue processof lalv,evidence
\ erywidelyaccepted notjustbypopularopinionbut by th€
officiai mind. It is thus evidence,howeverwrongly ob-
:ainedor subjectto ulte or motiv€,whichdoesnot differ
:n folm ftom thatgivenin otherlegalcasesofthe period.
If we disbelieve in witchcraft,it is despitetheevidence.
Historyis about€vidence,but we decide,o. the general
.ultureofour daydecides, whatto excludeIiom evidence.
Ir is not lack of evidence, but a genemlantecedent belief
:bat suchthings ought to be untrue,with which adherents
-rftheexistence of LFOSandtheBermudaTriangievainly
:ontend.Evidencemeans€videncewe approveol
Historyis aboutevidence.Historyas art,just as much
,ishistoryasscience, hasto respectits constraints. History
is inescapably tiedto the writtenword.Wherethewritten
'rord stops,therehistorystopsand geography, probably,
:'egins.Landscapeand architecture,though important as
rources,needthe swvival of past words to give them
:]eaning.(Hencethe mysteryof the Sphinx.)Historyex-
:iudes importantnon-literatecivilizationsand includes
:iimportant literateon€s.Historyis not the storyofman,
29

evenofpost-IceAgeman.The difference betweenrecord-
presening qocieliesaDdnon-rccord-preserving socieries
cansometimes be marginal.Historyis climatic:evidence
prefersvery wet surroundings,asin theNorthumbriaopeat
bogswhich preseweRomansoldiers'letters,or very dry
ones,as with the papyri of the Egl?tian desert.History
needsstonebuildings,stablearistocracies, €nduringbur-
eaucracies. Almosteverywhere, histo cal evidenceis and
hasalwaysb€€nphysicallyinsecure.
History is deeply male. History is essentiailynon-
young.History is aboutthe rich and famous,not the poor.
History favours the aticulate, not the silent- History is
abo[t winn€N (including those losen who were eventual
winn€rs),not aboutlosers.Historyis aboutassessing dis-
tortions,not copying out truths.History hasto live with, is
indeedthe child of censorship:the censorshipby one
cultureof its predecessor,thecensorship by a greatmodem
bureaucracyof its o.tUnoverproductionof records, the
censorshipof astutereticenceby thos€awarethat the eye
of poste ty will watchthem. History has much to say
aboutthe way the powerful handlepower, for power en-
gendersrecords.History is almost silent (so far) on
psychology, butcopiouson sociologyin thesenseofsocial
structure(lessso,perhaps, on sociologyasvalues).Histor]
is hopeless on love,butexcellenton hatr€d.Sucha stateof
thingsmay not pleaseall, but thenit wasnevermeantto
please. One-sidednesslies at the heart of historical
knowledge.
30
History a d Evidence
llistory is aboutanangingbits of paper.
r.r:rrical writing, is therefore difficult but n,
:.]csiraintsare not oneswhich intelligencac
::< highestmentalpowers,thoseofa Bacho!
r: nor required,becauseeven the loftiest inl
::-:: ar a lossas one of conunonclay in ap
.-: is notknowable.Thestudiesofpsycholo
:-r: a very modestLQ. will sufficeto makea
!s:.nan, if motivationand curiosityare ihe
:.3br surelyaddphysicalstamina,anda cert
ac ro boredom).To relate men to their c
.isccrial historical skill, is an everydaykind
..<ir if for the historian it involves a slightly
:.cem with paper,anothertlait on rvhich ps
rr. hadtheirsay.Itisa centralparadoxofhist
ir: ire explorationof humanfeeiingin all i
;<re hasto be doneby scholarlymolesand
llce Nho, howeverrollicking whenoff duty, n
rl.(:.rilj'bebureaucratic arrangers of informat
31

r-lce Age man.The differencebetweenrecord-
societiesand non-record-preseNlng socletles
sFs be marginaL.History is climatic: evidence
;-xer sunoundings,asifl theNorthumbrianpeat
I pres€rveRomansoldiers' letters,or very dry
rrh rhe papyn of the Eg)?tian desert.History
c buildhgs,stablearistocracies, endurmgbur-
.{imost everywhere,historical evidenceis and
beenphysicallyinsecure.
is deeply male. History is essentiailynon-
ro.l is aboutthe rich and farnous,not the poor.
rouis tbe articulate, not the silent. History is
rrs (lncluding those loserswho were evenhral
ro( aboutlosers.History is aboutassessingdis-
)r copying out truths.History hasto live with, is
: cbrld of censorship:the censorshipby one
lrspred€cesso., thecensorshipby a greatmodem
ry of its own overproductionof records, the
I of asote reticenceby thoseawarethat the eye
+ *ill watch them. History has much to say
*a1' the powerful haudle power, for power en-
ecords.History is almost silent (so far) on
!\'.bur copiouson sociologyin the senseof social
l€ssso,perhaps,on sociologyasvalues) History
s on loye,but excellenton hatred.Sucha stateol
Ltnor pleaseall, but thenit wasnevermeantto
lue-sidednesslies at the heart of histodcal
30
History and Evidence
History is about arranging bits of paper. History, or
historical writing, is therefore difficult but not hard. Its
co[straints are not ones which intelligence can remove.
The highestmentalpowers,those ofa Bach or a Newton,
lre not required, becauseeven the loftiost intellect is as
nuch at a loss as one of cotnmon clay in apprehending
*'hat is not knowable.The studiesofpsychologistssuggest
ilat a very modestLQ. will suffice to make a successful
\istorian, if motivation and curiosity are there (and one
:night surely add physical stamina,and a certain indiffer-
c1!ceto boredom). To relate msn to their context, the
essentialhistorical skill, is an everydaykind of activity,
.!en if for the historian it iqvolves a sligbtly obsessional
:oncem with paper,anotherfait on which psychologists
5avehadtheir !ay. It is a centlalparadoxofhistorical study
:hat the exploration of human feeling in all its magnifi-
.encehasto be doneby scholarlymolesand meticulous
sricewho, howeverrollicking when off duty, mustprofes-
sionallybe bureaucraticarrafigersof information.
3l

T lrolts, or that divided parties lose elections
HistoryandMeaning:
WhatMeaningMeans
Beyondevidence,lies meaning.
An example.Consider all Englishman and Amedcan
watching a cricket match,in all its arcanedtual. Both see
exactly the samephenomena.Both are eye-witnessesof
events.In termsof evidence,they areon an equal footing.
But one,the Englisbman,understandsthemeaningofwhat
is going on, while the Americanfinds it incomprehensible.
Evidenc€,then,without meaning,is nothing. And hist-
orians have to bring their meaning to the evidence:
€mpiricism is not enough.The American,left to himself,
will not grasp what cricket is about just by being an
onlooker.
He will, of course,seethat after six balls,the players
changedends.This is an empiricalhistoricalfact. It de- -
scribes,but doesnot explain. It leavesintention rather i&+
rbedark.It is cbronicle.asopposedro history.
The American,without any pior knowledge,may con,
tinue his observations,leadinghim to remarkthat bowling
six balls makes them chang€ends, exc€pt,he will pru-
dentlyadd,whentheydo not, asat the endofan innings.
32
History a d Meaning
tB be movesftom observationto generaliza
t higorian when he saysthat poli taxescau
cse, asa sciertist would hardly do, except!i
r do so.
Tbc Americanhasperhapsgoneasfar ashe
odering analogl becomestiresome.But ther
E4lisbman knows the m€aning of what il
bDws it in termsof intention,and the habitua
dcooventions making up a game,and what r
mble, andwhatnot. Yet both Englishrnanan
!! lhe sane phedomera.Seeing,and under
-ning, are worlds apart.
There are enough disagreementsto cons
korians aboutthenatureof their subject,witl
rg far inro {hediflerencebeN^een hisroric
srence. Two questions
arise:is historya scren
lfa science,doesit resemble naturalscience
lt doesnorresemble naruralscience, asis ea
q. to play safe, most forms of historical st
r€semblemostformsoftraditional natwal scie
cqrcems motives: sci€ncedoes not. Atoms (
ootives;peopledo.Sciencegivesthesameres
placeandtime; history is incapableofsuch rep
eachhistoricaleventis uflique.History ts no
*rtlr seekingunderlyinglaws, asmuch ofphys
does(or perhapsdid). History is not much con
the type or the average:even in biological sc
33

Meaning:
ins Means
r Enslishmarard Amedcan
- dl its arcaneritual. Both see
Both are eye-witnessesof
they areon an equal footing.
themeauingofwhat
ion findsit incomprehensible,
E€aning. is nothing. And hist-
ir meaningto the evidence:
The American. left to himself-
is aboutjust by being an
!" that after six balls, the players
.0 empirical historical fact. It de- -
in. It leavesintention rather ia'-
asopposedto history.
alry prior koowledge,rnay con-
hading him to remarkthat bowling
changeends, except,he will pm-
do not, as at the end ofan innings.
32
History and Meaning
llere he movesfrom observationto generalization,asdoes
It€ histo ar when he saysthat poll taxescausepeasants,
trvolts, or that divided parties lose elections,adding of
cou$e, asa scientistwould hardly do, exceptwhenthey do
oot do so.
The Americanhasperhapsgoneasfar ashe can,andthe
cricketing analogybecomestiresome.But thereis this: the
Englishman knows thc meaning of what is going on,
bows it in termsof intention,ard the habitualacceptance
ofconventions making up a game,and what natters or is
mtable, andwhat not. Yet both EnglishmanandAmerican
seethe samephenomena.Seeing,and understardingthe
meanmg,are worlds apart.
There are enough disagreenentsto consider among
historiansaboutthenatureoftheir subject,without diverg-
itrg far into the difference betweetrhistorical study and
science.Two questionsarise:is history a scienceor an art?
Ifa science,doesit resamblenaturalscience?
It doesnot resemblenaturalsci€nce,asis easilyshown;
or, to play safe, most forms of historical study do not
resemblemost formsoftaditional naturalscience.History
concemsmotives: scieqcedoes not. Atoms do not have
motives;peopledo. Sciencegivesthe sameresultsin every
placeandtime; history is incapableof suchreplicarion,for
each historical event is unique. History is not concemed
with seekingunderlyinglaws, asmuch ofphysical science
does(or perhapsdid). History is not much concernedwith
the type or the average:even in biological science,when
33

dissectinga Aog, one's concernis with featues common
to all liogs, rather than the ways in which one particular
fiog is unique.And in history, unlike in science,one
caffrot use contol groupsto test a h)pothesrs;or at very
least,it wouldbe difficult, anduncommon, to do so.
The points made above constitute a standardanswer,
and one which nine out of ten historianswould probably
accept.History is not a scietce, if by scienceone means
traditional ideas of physical science. Perhapsthis is a
questionof verbal usage,for in English the word science
marks a sharpdivision, whereasthe G€rmancounterpart
Wissenschaldenotesthe underlying unity of all thought
and leaming. Thus, if our verbal usagewas more like the
Geman, we might end by arguing that history was both
science(in its own way) and art. For all that, puttiog mere
verbal nuanceaside,we would still have to stressin bow
nany ways history is very unlike most of the nanual
sciences.
Historianstry not only to describethe past; they try to
explain it. Only v€ry rarely does the past supply any
€xplanationof itseli The attemptto supplythe meaningof
thepastis the distinguishing featureofbistory (asit is, in
principle, of social scielce in its broadestsense)-The
presenceofmeaning,ratherthanthe absenceoflaws, is the
distinction that mattersmost: meaninginvolving thought,
motive, intention,and lack of intention,things with which
sciencehasobviously no business.
Thepresence, or absence, of lawsandpr€dictable regu-
History and Meaning
hiries is a distinctionon which too muct
ro resr in the past.It will ever remaina
{ieDce is itself variousand shiffing,and
garicle physicssometimesseemsto res
rildly intuitiveformsof history.Somef
E€d laws,otherslessso.The issueis not
.rf lawswithin all sciences, but thatwhere
la\. tbe Se(ondLaw of Thermod)Tam
jdmethingmorethana pattemwith inevit
Historians do deal in patterns:at leas
iome do not. But eventhosewho do not, r
irl principle to it being saidthal medieval(
!fuough the progressiv€alienation of te
.lishfy subjects a commonenoughpa
'ja! thereis alwaysthe whisperedqual
uher it is diff€rent'.Howeverfaithfullytr
partemmay be, ther€is nevercertaintyth
Fttem will repeatitsell Thuspattemsare
Historydoesnor resemble naruralsci
above, there are up to five big differer
varying weight. Theremaybe a sixth differ
ihe place of authorify in scienceconside
lional subject. There is little room fo
opinion,or opinionat all, in anatomy,che
ics.Onecamot reinterpret the breastbon
r:iewof sulphuricacid,at leastwhile clm
tionalladder,Whilethestepsto scientifict
.e-treadingthe ladderofreasoning,theulti
35

i wia featusscommon
io which one particular
rElike in science, one
r hypothesis;or at very
to do so.
a standardanswer,
Icaians would orobablv
if by scienceone mears
riarc€. Perhapsthis is a
Eodish the word scieace
the G€rmancounterpart
itrg uDity of all thought
usagewas morc like the
ilg that historywas both
Fcr all that. puttiDgmere
still haveto stressin how
rlike most of the narural
the pasUthey try to
d6 the past supply any
to supplyth€meaningof
&atue ofhistory (asit is, in
iB its broadestsense).The
the absenceoflaws, is the
oeaning involving thought,
diEtention, things with which
of lawsandpredictable
regu-
v 35
HistoryondMeaning
is a distinction on which too much hasbeenmade
tc$ in the past. lt will ever reEvrin a fair point; but
bp is irsell variousand shifting.atrdro an outsider,
icle physics sometimess€emsto rcsembletbe more
intuitive forms of history. Someforms of science
laws, othe6 lessso.The issueis not the universalitv
bws within all sciences,but that wherescienceasserts.
, the SecondLaw of Thermodlmamics,it is asserting
ing morethan a pattemwith inevitableexc€ptions.
Historians do deal in pattems: at least, some do, and
ne do not. But eventhosewho do not, would not object
i principle to it beingsaidthat medievalmonarchieswane
tlongh the progressivealienation of teritory to over-
righfy subjects- a comnon enoughpattem- provided
tbt there is always the whisperedqualification 'except
rt€E it is differeqt'. Howeverfaithfully taced a historical
Fttem may be, there is never c€rtainfythat next tim€ the
lrttem will repeatitsell Thuspattemsarenot laws.
History does not resemblenatural science.As shown
-ove, there are up to five big differcnces, though of
v&ymg weight. Thercrnaybe a sixth difference.It is about
6e place of authority in scienceconsideredas an educa-
tioqal subject. There is little room for difference of
opinion, or opiqion at all, in anatomy,chemistry,or phys-
ics. One cannotr€interpretthe breastbone,or take a novel
view of sulphuricacid, at least while climbing the educa-
tioml ladder.While the st€psto scicntific Atth rnayrcst on
re-treadingthe ladderofreasoning,theultimaie rcsult rests

on authority: this is the truth, this is the right answer,this
is what authority says one must think. So a scientific
education,for all its laudableculture ofrcason andexperi
ment, is fo. most of those experiencingit, mildly but
necessarilyauthoritarian,becauseauthoritative.
History is anarchic,not authoritarian.A freshmanmay
trump a professor,not in knowledge,but in interyretation.
Even an examinationanswermay show a quite new in-
sight. History knows no last word on any subject. The
biggq ard better-todden the subject- for instancethe
origins of the First World War the more often it can be
reinterpreted.This is becausehistory is not aboutleaming,
or leamedness, but about meaning,in whose domain
authority haslittle sway.
But, it may be said, the Noman Conquestafter all
certainly took place in 1066.The Normanswon at Hast-
ings, and that is that. The answeris robust- that is very
muchnot that. Onemanmay think that the Normanswon;
anotherthat they lost, disasfously, all that rnattered all
hope of being more than a subordinatepolity ruled from
London,andthat defeaton that dayalonecouldhavesaved
them from the slippery slope that led to th€ absorprion,
soonerrather than later, of Nomandy into France. The
differencesin interpretationfar outweigh in fullness of
meaningany agreemerfon the observedphenomena.Cer-
tainly, no appeal to authority can settle such debates;
seeing the sameevent does not entail agreementon its
36
History and Meakihg
for the senseof its meaning is supplie
Fcriooalway from the historian's inner nal
lL historianunderstands, the scientistreasons
rdy is not anactofscientific reasoning;but if
clse? The somethingelse, various philoso
i)al thoughthavesaid,mustbe an actof ima!
lnginative re-enactment.In sayingthis, philc
Croce in Italy, Dilthey in Germany,Collingw
i-oEngland.arenol sayingtbathisLorianr
ical novelists,unconstrainedby histodcal a
rheyarc sayingthat a pre-conditionof accwac
seose,is re-thinking or re-imaginingthe thoug
|! a negativeway, ihis makesgood sense.Re-
t past in terms of present-daypreoccupatior6
ihi, tbe worst mistakea historiancar make a n
rtich consensusruns broad and deep(and shou
fue be questioned,as later it will be) Never fo
p.ople io the pastdid not know what camenext, a
&n we do. The limits of humanprediction can1
red in months mther than years. To share dl
uoderstandingof itsell one must shareits igno
vhat camenext.
Still, somedovr'nto earththoughtsaboutthis he
of imaginingpast thoughtcome quicldy to mil
are not necessarilyfatal objections,but they
aidy objections.There are, I thinlq not lesst
cornmor}sense di{fi culties-
3'/

nS: this is thet uth, this is theright anslver,this
alrhoritv saysone must think. So a scientific
L lbr all ils iaudablecuitureofreasonandexperi-
ibr most of those experiencingit, mildly but
rl) authoritarian, because authodtative.
}- is anarchic,not authoritarian.A freshmanmay
xofessor,not in knowledge,but in intelpretatlon
eramination answermay show a quite new m-
lsrcry knows no last word on any subject. The
od bener-troddenthe subject for instancethe
ri the First World War the morc oft€n it can be
aed. Thisis because historyis not aboutleaming,
€dness. but about meaning, in whose domaln
t baslirde sway.
n nuy b€ said, the Norman Conquestafter all
r took placein 1066.The Normarswon at Hast-
d rbat is that. The answeris rcbust that is very
x rhar.Onemanmay thint that the Normanswon;
Ihat they lost, disastrously,all that mattefed- all
berngmore than a subordinatepolify ruled from
. andlhat defeaton that dayalonecouldhavesaved
oc,rrhe slippery slope that led to the absorption,
Grber than later, of Normandy into France The
.es in inte.pretation far outweigh in fullness of
g a.n)agreementon the observedphenomenaCel-
Do app€al to authoity can settle such debates;
tlle sameevent does not entail agreementon its
36
HistoryandMeahing
cning, for the senseof its meaning is supplied in an
*llosl fictional way ftom the historian's inner rlature'
Thehistorianunderstands,the scientistreasorc.Historl-
.ri 51udyis not anactofscientific reasoning;but ifnot that'
riar else?The somethingelse,variousphilosophersof
Lido.ical thoughthavesaid,mustbe an actofimagination,
.r :maginativere-enactmentln sayingthis, philosophers
L. Crocein ltaly, Dilthey in Germany,Collingwood and
a loch in England,are not sayingthat historiansare mere
bsrorical novelists,unconstrainedby historical accuracy
\. dey aresayingthata pre-condirion ofaccuracy.in an;
i:ll sense,is re-thinking or re-imagininglhe thoughtofthe
Fs1.
lo a negativeway, this makesgood sense.Re-thinkmg
iE past in terms of present-daypreoccupationsis hind-
qsht, the worst mistakea historiancanmake a matt€rol1
.hich cons€nsusruns broad and deep(and shouldthere-
ro.e be questioned,as later it will be). Never forget that
more
Fople in the pastdid not kiow what camenext, any
r:taowe do. The limits of humanprediction canbe meas-
sed in months rather than years. To share the past's
r.oderstanding of itself.one must shareits tgnoranceoI
iirat camenext.
Still, som€downto earththoughlsaboutthis headywine
-.i imaginingpastthoughtcome quickly to miod They
rre oot necessarilyfatal objections,but they are cert-
Inly objections.Thereare, I think, not lessthan four
:ommonsensediffi culties.

First, of how many p€ople in the presentdo you know
their inner thoughts?Any? Enough to write a coherent
study of contemporaiysociety?Do you really know the
deepestmotives ofyour own family? And ifknowing the
thought of anotherpelsorl is hard enoughin the present,
how canwe hopeto apply it to thoseknown to us only on
paper?
Secondly,we all conceaiour iltentions and feelings to
some extent, but leaders and personsof note have, by
haining, habit, and necessity,wom masksof ambiguity
and artificiality to such an extent that speaking of an
undertying reality is often almost impossible.The public
figule is so unlike the private figure that imagining past
thoughtby analogywith our own private thoughtis a snare
anddelusion.
Thirdly, bow doesone veriry th€ re-€nactmentof past
thought,that is, why is my re-enactmentbetterthanthat of
anotherpe$on (or areall equally good,on the principle of
givilg marks for effort?).
Fourthly, there is the fact that the philosophersof his-
torical imagioationwrite not from pwe love of truth, but
with a certain axeto grind. Their theoriesarc not plucked
{iom a blue sky,but area retort- a retort to the dominance
and pestige of natural sciencein the nineteenthcentury,
andperhapsofa semi-scientihcsocialsciencein the twea-
tieth century. Philosophiesof historical method were an
attempt to meet prctensionwith pretension,and cannot
claim Dwitv of motive.
38
History andMeaning
So much for the cold water. For all that- ther
itoduction to history which neglected
ing is thepoenyof hislory.evidencetheI
udemic historians,if askedwhat their phi
was.wouldprobablyeitherrenrn a dus
ry rhattheythoughtCollingwoodwasbrc
they would cautiouslyadd,wherc he w
he wss a talentedsloganizer,becauseI
irb, because,being publishedin an early P
the ear of the postwar genemtioo,Colli
Factical puq,osesthe most available philr
(in the senseof how one sh.rdies
the Das
E of how the pastworks) that we have, de
&rinution of his statureby the advent of Ma
Gial sci€ncesin the Sixties.
Wbo wasCollingwood, and why doeshe ma
39

in the presentdo you know
Eoough to wdte a coherent
l*/ Do you really know the
family?And if knowingthe
k hard enoughin th€ present,
it to thosekno\tn to us only on
our intentionsand feelings to
ed personsof note have, by
it5r,wom masksof ambiguity
n extent that speaking of an
almost impossible.The public
FiYate flgwe that imagining past
qtr own private thoughtis a snare
of past
veriry the re-enactment
!|y re-enactmentbetterthanthat of
dl €qualtygood,on theprincipleof
t fact that tirephiiosophers
of his-
rb not ftom purelove of truth.but
grind Their theoriesare not plucked
a rctort - a retort to the dominance
sciencein the nineteenthcentury,
i{cientific socialsciencein the twen-
ies of historical method were an
with pretension,and cannot
History and MPahing
So much for the cold water. For all that, therecould be
intsoduction to history which neglect€d its poetry.
ing is thepoetryof history,eyidencetheprose.Brit-
academichistorians,if askedwhat thei philosophyof
Axy was,wouldprobablyeitherretuma dustyanswe.,
saythat theythoughtCollingwoodwasbroadlyright
theywould cautiouslyadd,wherehe waswrong).
he was a talentedsloganizer,becausehe wrote in
isb, because,being publishedin an early Penguin,he
the ear of the postwargeneration,Collingwood is
factical purposesthe most available philosopher of
(in t-hesenseo[bow onestudiesrhepasl.not in lhe
of how the pastworks) that we have, despitesome
&inution of his statureby the advent of Marxism aod
ial sciencesin the Sixties.
Who wasCollingwood, and why doeshe matter?
39