appleapple

I have found some textual evidence from the past about what history is. These are excerpts from Herodotus's History and from Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric. Herodotus's History, Proem: "This is the display of the history of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds--some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians--not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other." Herodotus states what the purpose of history is. One displays history so that deeds are not forgotten, so that deeds do not lose glory, and so that the cause of war can be displayed. Aristotle's Poetics, 9: "The difference between a historian and a poet is not that one writes in prose and the other in verse—indeed the writings of Herodotus could be put into verse and they would not be one whit less history, whether written in metre or not. The real difference is this, that one tells what happened and the other what could happen. For this reason poetry is something more philosophic and more serious than history, because poetry is more of universals, whereas history is of particulars. By a 'universal' I mean the sort of thing that a certain type of man will do or say either probably or necessarily. A 'particular' is what Alcibiades did or what was done to him. " History writes about the particulars of the past, without any reference to them being species of a universal class character. It seems that the sheer quantity, sequence, and simultaneity of events makes it difficult to find universals in particular actions. Aristotle's Poetics, 23 "It must not be such as we normally find in history, where what is required is an imitation not of a single piece of action but of a single period of time, showing all that within the period befell one or more persons, events that have a haphazard relation to each other. For just as the battle of Salamis occurred at the same time as the Carthaginian battle in Sicily, but they do not converge to the same result3 [3 - Gelo's defeat of the Carthaginians in Sicily in 480 B.C. took place, according to Herodotus, on the same day as the battle of Salamis.] ; so, too, in any sequence of time one event may follow another and yet they may not issue in any one result." History is a record of all of the events within a time, which do not bear any unified causal relation to one another. Aristotle's Rhetoric, 1.4.8: "Accordingly, the orator who is going to give advice on ways and means should be acquainted with the nature and extent of the State resources, so that if any is omitted it may be added, and if any is insufficient, it may be increased. Further, he should know all the expenses of the State, that if any is superfluous, it may be removed, or, if too great, may be curtailed. For men become wealthier, not only by adding to what they already possess, but also by cutting down expenses. Of these things it is not only possible to acquire a general view from individual experience, but in view of advising concerning them it is further necessary to be inquisitive [historikon] about what has been discovered among others." [1.4.13] "It is clear, therefore, that for legislation books of travel are useful, since they help us to understand the laws of other nations, and for political debates, historical works are useful. All these things, however, belong to Politics and not to Rhetoric." History is for the sake of deliberative oratory in political debates about what should be done.

Thanks, AfricanusCrowther. I guess that this inches closer to the definition of an historian who inquires about the study of the past, insofar as I will be seeking answers about history from authors who have studied documents from the past in order to say what history is.

Thanks for your encouraging message, telkanuru! Is a "what is x" question a starting point for a grand theory or a grand narrative? If so, then I will not ask what is grand theory and I will not ask again what is a grand narrative. If these things really are not productive, and if it really is important to be productive rather than to be not productive, then I will stay away from asking questions like this. Yes, your message is encouraging—far from the acquisition of perplexity disqualifying me from being an historian, it is actually the starting point for becoming an historian! Like the other post that connected one sentence to the other with "hence," I cannot discern what the meaning of "similarly" is here. I guess that you mean theory:questioning::praxis::answering or doing history. I wish that I could answer you and I'm sorry that I can't answer you, telkanuru. I will quote my post, and then I will try to repeat myself in other words. If an historian is one who does history—and I am as uncertain about that in the quoted post as I have been throughout the thread—then doing history or being an historian is to inquire or it is to acquire knowledge by means of investigation or it is possibly both of these things and writing down one's inquiries and the answers that one has collected as a result of one's inquiries. In this sense of doing history—writing one's inquiries, writing down the answers that one collects from one's inquiries—it seemed to me that I was doing history. For a moment, it seemed to me that I was doing history about history: I was inquiring about that very thing, history, in order to acquire knowledge about it, and I was collecting the answers with each next post. Yet, in point of fact, because I am as unsure as ever about what history is, it seems as though I have not garnered knowledge about history from my inquiries. Instead, I have only garnered perplexity. Without knowledge having obtained as a result of my inquiries, and with knowledge having been that for the sake of which I inquired in the first place, it seems to me that I am not in fact an historian, because I have so far failed to fulfill the purpose of history: the acquistion of knowledge. I hope that this helps you understand my dilemma, telkanuru. For my part, I have only gained the slight advantage of beginning to see how great my ignorance really is. However, if you really were encouraging me, then I can assure myself that this ignorance is a springboard from which I can really begin to acquire knowledge about history and, as a result, do history.

"History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation")[2]is the study of the past as it is described in written documents.[3][4]Events occurring before written record are considered prehistory. It is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of information about these events. Scholars who write about history are called historians." This is from Wikipedia. Is it true that history is entirely dependent on written documents, with the objects of history being receipts, diaries, letters, laws, literature, and the like? Is it true that there is no history apart from written documents? Are historians the ones who write about the study of history, whereas the ones who in fact study the written documents of the past have a different name? To my very great surprise, it seems as though I myself am an historian according to Wikipedia's definition of the Greek word, insofar as I make inquiries and insofar as I seek to acquire knowledge by means of investigation. However, I guess that I am disqualified from being an historian if I do not acquire any knowledge from my inquiries—I've only acquired more perplexity!

Thanks again, telkanuru. You ask me as though I'm a knower, but I am so little a knower that I can do no better than to seek answers from knowers like you. I hope that I will be able to find someone who will be able to teach me what history is.

Thanks, fordlandia. This does seem like a must-read, especially if the things that were omitted from historical narratives in former times are indications of inequities here and now.

Thanks so much for this. Yes, I am starting to see some boundaries of popular history, academic history, and critiques of these. Then again, it seems as though I am almost right where I began! I still go around asking myself and anyone whom I expect to be able to tell me—what in the world is history, anyway?

Wow, thanks for this and especially for the cautionary word, telkanuru! I hope that you don’t mind that your great response provokes so many questions! So that I don’t spend my time on something that isn’t productive, what is a grand narrative? Why can’t I discern the connection from “history as a polemical claim which intends the creation of radical temporal disjuncture for discrete, local, and political ends” to the “Hence” that follows it? With history being understood in this way according to Davis, what is the conceptual difficulty of breaking the periodization of that which exists between what is modernity and what is not? What is this “that which is between” and what is “modernity”? Do you find post-colonial theory productive? If so, do you have a good reference for that? Why does the choice to study history perpetuate colonial power structures? Does Mitchell mean that studying any history at all, rather than writing European colonial history about European colonial rights of property, perpetuates colonial power structures? I guess that Mitchell takes for granted that there is not a principle of human reason, or that these European colonial historians of the European colonial rights of property were wrong about a principle of human reason. Was there any history before European colonialism and is there any history of something other than property rights? What is troubling about history being locally contingent to an historian or to the topics of the history in question? Is it that history nowadays (or in the not so recent past) claimed to be universal, objective, absolute, or unqualified despite not being so? When one reads Ms. Y’s history of Z, is it given that Ms. Y, from such and such a time and place, with such and such training, is writing about such and such a topic, that the reader from such and such a time and place, with such and such experiences, chooses to read? Thanks again, telkanuru!

Thanks, Kantattheairport. This looks like it will be useful for putting Carr in perspective.

Thanks for this. Why can't I get the meaning of the quotation marks? Is it because I am not a learned historian? I guess that "historical thinking" and to "do" history are vague everyday concepts but that they are nevertheless thoroughly familiar concepts to the academic historian. Still, for me at least, they are concepts without any content. When one "thinks about history," about what is it that one thinks? Is it the same thing that one does when one "does history"?

Thanks, AfricanusCrowther. I will follow this reference.

Thanks for the references, MARTINt.

Does Carr distinguish academic history from history simply? Does White hold that there is such a thing as history apart from the discipline of history?

What is history? If there are good sources for this, then I would be glad to read expert opinions. I wish to learn what is called history nowadays. I expect that I will learn it by asking those who intend to specialize in this very thing.

Congrats. When did you hear from BC? Would you please share some of your research interests?