Nelson & His World

In an interview in the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning, Professor Margaret Macmillan and Dominic Sandbrook bemoaned the fact that academics are turning in on themselves, and that instead of writing about history, historians are writing about how other historians are constructing the past. They complained that most history books are now written by journalists and retired politicians (- presumably anybody else must be totally beyond the pale). Their view was that it is important that history is written by those trained to do it, who can understand the complexities and dangers involved. Others take a too simple-minded approach.

Does anybody have a view on this?

If it is true that ‘journalists and politicians are taking over the writing of history perhaps we might ask why. Could it be because academic historians have become increasingly specialised, focusing on very small areas of study, often in limited geographical areas, e.g. ‘the effect of contagious diseases on the leatherworkers in south east Somerset 1550-1600’ that are of interest to a very limited audience? This might be a reflection of the way history has been taught in schools for some years now, with the emphasis on the small scale, the move away from a focus on the achievements of heroic individuals towards a sharper concentration on the minutiae of the everyday lives of ordinary people. Daily life in another age can have its fascinations, but if it is not set in context, with pupils having some understanding of the broad sweep of history, of the movements, personalities, influences and spirit that shaped succeeding historical periods, something very fundamental is lost. I am disturbed that history, even in universities, is taught in discrete ‘modules’, often having little connection to each other, when the most cursory examination of the past will reveal the ‘connectedness’ of history, even though in many areas of human experience, this paradoxically involves disconnection: one age will react against the mores, artistic tastes, political certainties etc. of the preceding one. I do think that one needs some understanding of the over-arching view before homing in to focus on minutiae. Whereas science tends to move from the particular to the general, the humanities need to focus first on acquiring a broad understanding of the general before concentrating on the particular.

History is not an exact study: the materials the historian has to work with are often incomplete. Organising a convincing argument will often require something beyond the mere presentation of evidence: there is such a thing as a ‘nose’ or a flair, often deriving from a humane sympathy with individuals, an ability to deduce motives, or to force a re-consideration of previously-held convictions even if they cannot be conclusively overturned. Such skills are not the exclusive prerogative of the academic historian. Anyone who writes, be they enthusiast, journalist or politician, needs to be aware how to sift evidence, to evaluate sources, to construct a convincing argument, and many of them succeed splendidly in that endeavour, and bring also the additional attributes noted above which are often lacking in the work of academic historians. Kate Summerscale, for example, not an historian, but a journalist, has written a wonderful book, ‘The Suspicions of Mr Whicher’ in which she re-examines a notorious murder in the Victorian era. Not only does she skilfully reconstruct the case through a careful examination of all the existing evidence and explore the personalities involved, she sets the whole in the social context of repressive and often explosive Victorian family life; produces a study of the increased emphasis on police detection and how its constituent skills were noted and absorbed by the literary conventions of the day giving rise to the new genre of detective fiction. She combines historical rigour and exact research with imaginative sympathy, a sharp eye for the frailties of human nature and a broad historical view that allows her to interweave many different strands into a coherent whole. And she can write. Which brings me to a further point:
that is, the appalling quality of much academic writing. Simplicity is often anathema; opacity and convolution are employed to give a spurious weight and authority. The result is dull, almost lifeless. On another thread, I referred to an art history paper on the use of the eye in miniature portraits during the 18th century. The observations were new and interesting, but essentially simple in concept. The paper, however, encased the argument in an elaborate and pretentious language that was both tedious and ridiculous. This inelegance seems not to be the result of incompetence but an academic requirement. A young friend of mine has just been awarded a Ph.D. – but only after he re-wrote much of the work, at the instigation of his supervisor, not because the evidence or conclusions were faulty or inadequate but merely to ‘dress up’ his findings in grandiose academic language.

Unless academic historians can free themselves from the restrictions of narrow areas of study and an obsession with ‘rigour’ in a subject that is not always susceptible to it, and where intelligent speculation has a role to play; unless they can free themselves from a paralysed language that bears no relation to any known literary convention beyond its own narrow confines; and unless they realise that the interpretation of history demands not simply fact-grubbing and compilation but insight, imagination and an ability to make connections – they will be condemned to cerebral incest, confined in their ivory towers, while the journalists and other enthusiasts inform the minds and capture the hearts of the literary public.

Is there some listen again or repeat facility for this radio interview, as I'd like to hear it in full if that's possible?

I also tried to find the item on Radio 4's Listen Again facility but with no luck - which may be because of my incompetence. Like Mira, I'd be grateful for a pointer.

You can listen again on this page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 999345.stm - scroll down to 8:26

Alternatively the whole program is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00jn0pm - the interview is about 2 hours 26 minutes in.

It's a very short interview and doesn't develop much beyond my summary in the first post!

Edit: A better link that goes straight to the interview is http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 999551.stm

Thank you for that link, Tony. I think Dominic Sandbrook was rather foolish to dismiss 'politicians who go off and write history books'. William Hague has written a biography of Pitt which was extremely well received by historians and public alike; and Roy Jenkins wrote a number of excellent, scholarly political biographies after he left office. Alan Clark, a maverick politician indeed, nevertheless produced some highly regarded historical studies.

The idea that only 'trained historians' should write history is really rather arrogant. It can be an advantage to have some training in an academic discipline, not necessarily history, to help you distinguish between the relevant and the irrelevant, and to assess the quality of the primary and secondary sources you consult, but passion for the pursuit of truth and integrity in assessing and recording it are not confined to academic historians. Many excellent historical works are also produced by those who have a personal connection with an historical subject which has fired their interest in, and understanding of, the period in which their ancestor lived. Just one example: I have at my side at this moment an excellent work 'The Commissioner's Daughter: the story of Elizabeth Proby and Admiral Chichagov', written by Joanna Woods, a descendant of Elizabeth. Ms Woods is not a trained historian - her discipline is English Literature - but she has produced not only a lively biography of a marriage, but also an absorbing, well-written and meticulously referenced account of some of the most dramatic events in Russian history. Her characters are set in context, and her observation of the larger historical landscape is acute.

The author of the little booklet on the American prisoners at Dartmoor, an unpretentious yet careful piece of research, was stimulated to write it by his years working at the prison; and I am sure Tony's biography of his ancestor, Captain Mansfield, will be similarly well-researched and written. Already he has unearthed, through diligent research in obscure records, events in Captain Mansfield's life that seem to have sunk into oblivion. Enthusiasts who write from love and who add their illuminating pieces to the mosaic of history are to be encouraged and applauded, not dismissed as incompetent and inadequate.

All of the writers mentioned - politicians, journalists and enthusiasts - are driven by passion for their subject and the era they lived in, and handle their material with intelligence, sensitivity and respect. That is not to say that non-historians always produce immaculate and historically respectable work; but it is simply silly to deny the evidence of the many excellent works produced by non-historians and make the ludicrous assertion that only training in that specific discipline qualifies a writer to produce good history. Perhaps it's the challenge from non-historians, and the endorsement from the literary public of the work that many of them produce that have provoked many academics to retreat in self-protection to a false intellectualisation of their discipline.

Sorry - I'm ranting a bit. I'll shut up now.

This is an interesting post, especially for us simple folk who like a good (jargon-free) read. I'm wondering if those being interviewed meant what they said. Did they actually mean that the bookstores were concentrating on celebrity authors, ignoring other very good books? When I was last in WH Smith, they had stacks of Paxman's latest Victorian book, and it has been in the bestseller lists. Yet he has (so I believe) admitted he didn't write it - it was ghost-written for him as he didn't have enough time.

Professor Margaret MacMillan did very specifically put the "blame" on the academics, for not writing the history books that people wanted to read. Margaret MacMillan and Dominic Sandbrook both agreed with each other that it was dangerous for history to be written by those not "professionally trained" to write it.

Obviously there are dangers of over-simplification, and also of misinterpretation, perhaps especially by evaluating past actions using today's concerns, values or cultural mores. But I would have thought that the school of life did have something to offer towards the interpretation of history. After all, intelligence and discernment are not the exclusive preserve of academics. And as Tycho says, eloquence is often not their preserve at all.

Margaret MacMillan is of course currently promoting her book "The Uses and Abuses of History", which I imagine must focus much on the misuse of history by politicians. She may have felt it wasn't an opportune moment to criticise publishers and bookstores.

If historians are not going to write the types of book that people want to read, and by that I mean the majority of us who want a book to be historically accurate, but at the same time not dry and boring but rather providing a lively read, then others are going to do that for them.

That these authors are largely journalists and politicians is surely all to the good, since those in these professions usually have an enquiring mind. I would imagine too that if they are seriously going to write a historical autobiography or book about a subject from the past, then they are also going to find out all they can about it as a preliminary. I would think that a great many journalists and politicians also have an interest in history naturally and probably went on to study it at college or university. That they didn't then become professional historians, should not be a bar to them from writing historical books. After all, I wouldn't imagine that they suddenly stopped being interested in history when they became a journalist or politician.

Of course, not all historians are bad writers – nor are all journalists or politicians necessarily good ones – but I believe today that most people when reading history books want them to be: a) historically accurate and, increasingly, would like to know where the author had done his research – hence providing detailed appendicis, footnotes, bibliographies, etc; b) lively and readable, with the words almost flowing off the page; c) affordable, which in these days of paperbacks – where these seem to come out almost as soon as the hardback version, on demand printing, etc. I imagine they largely are. I actually think a large number of today's jounalists, and historians, are also aware of the needs of today's readers - and I can think of many maritime historians, for example, who are producing very readable, historically accurate books, but which are also often ground-breaking in many regards. This too is what people want, and I believe that the days are largely gone where historians simple trot out the same old stuff that went before. Even if it is the same old stuff, it is often presented in a lively and novel way.

Anna, one of those you left off your list is former Labour politician Roy Hattersley, who wrote a biography of 'Nelson' published in 1974. Written some 35 years ago, there is nothing particularly ground-breaking about it and it is one of those published with many pictures. However I believe it is an honest appraisal of the then known facts and it is a good read. There are of course other media, where both historians and others have an interest. I am rather thinking here of the humble DVD and, as examples, 'In Nelson's Footsteps' by the late historian Colin White, and 'Nelson's Trafalgar' presented by former Conservative politician, Michael Portillo, both of which are good and well worth watching.