The state of modern historians....

Status
Not open for further replies.
tgoerz

tgoerz

Puritan Board Freshman
In doing research on John Knox, I have accumulated and am reading histories dating back to the 18th century.

As I have come forward to modern writers, there is a very noticeable pattern in the writings.

The over-riding pattern is the interjection of their analysis of historical events into the historical record. Most of the time, it is a very 'narrow', biased analysis. They interject motive and psychoanalize characters....with no means of proving their analysis. Much of it purely political.

The bias extends to their sources and many outright 'diss' earlier historians as being limited in their 'dated' resources and not having the benefits of "modern historical discovery". Many of the dis-respected historians are late 19th and early 20th century writers!!

I find many of the earlier historians contain quite a few more 'cites' and their bibliographies are significantly more extensive. To me, this is the better history. Not to mention the quality of writing is substantially better and much more intellectual.

Can anyone tell me about this "modern historical discovery" and what it is that has been discovered that is so much better?
 
Be sure to check out William Stanford Reid's book on Knox, The Trumpeter of God. I suspect you would find Reid to be very definitely of the old school in regards to how he approaches history, though he was writing in a 20th century context.

Also, and without attempting to answer your concluding question, here are two other resources on Knox out of the old Southern Presbyterian Review:

"John Knox as the English and as the Scottish Reformer," by Dr. Stuart Robinson:
http://www.pcahistory.org/HCLibrary/periodicals/spr/v27/27-3-2.pdf
and
http://www.pcahistory.org/HCLibrary/periodicals/spr/v28/28-1-1.pdf
 
I was a history major and I took several graduate classes while I was in school.

One thing to note is that all history involves some analysis, even if appears to be a reporting of facts. The historian's subject position will always be included in some manner - we only tend to notice it more when we disagree with it! Even if the historian has an "objective" style, the history will be painted by what they chose to report and what they left out, what they find significant and what they do not, what they elaborate on and what they do not etc etc. So, I wouldn't necessarily say that older historians are "less biased." They're still biased, but just in a different manner.

As far as bibliography and documentation- I'm curious as to the sorts of historians you are reading. You may be reading more "popular history" which is a new development. History writing can generally be divided into two types - popular and scholarly. Scholarly history has a long tradition -so most older histories that you read will be in a scholarly manner (footnotes good documentation etc). Popular history (written for the masses rather than the student) tend to be newer - written in the last 40 or so years and generally include less documentation, scholarly research etc. Sarah Vowell's Wordy Shipmates (a dubious history of the Puritans) is a good example. Recent scholarly histories should have the same amount of documentation as older histories - in fact, generally they have a great deal more documentation as its now easier to get access to primary sources.

And then there's the matter of "dissing" earlier historians. Again, I'm not familiar with what you're reading, but if it is a scholarly work, it really shouldn't be "dissing" earlier scholarship, in so many words. Having said that, because of vastly improved access to archives and previously closed documents, many historians have new and different perspectives on historical events and persons. I have generally found these new perspectives to have at least some validity - particularly if the historian is basing their perspective on a new source to which a previous historian didn't have access. Also, part of writing history is to challenge ideas and assumptions of other historians - a practice which I think is very good. No one historian is infallible and we're mostly likely to get good history by engaging in an exchange of ideas.
 
Kathleen.....there a couple of populist books that I have read such as Rosalind Marshall's work on Knox and Sir Walter Scott's 4 volume history of Scotland.

For the most part, I have sought and obtained works by venerable historians such as McCrie, Wm Croft Dickinson, Calderwood, Alexander Mitchell and Hay Fleming, Peter Hume Brown, Ian Cowan and James McEwen, Alexander Macewen and Lord Eustace Percy and Gordon Donaldson.

Many of these works are out of print, but thanks to Kessinger Publishing Rare Reprints are available.

BTW, I have used Donaldson and Croft Dickinson's 'Note on Authorities' as a bibliography for my reading.

A good comparison to what I allude to in my previous post is A.R. Macewen and say Roger Mason of St Andrews University. There is no comparison in bibliography and documentation. Mason is purely political and seeks to confirm Knox as a demagogue, while Macewen paints a full portrait of the man.

It could be that this "vastly improved access to archives and other previously closed documents" have shed a new light on events and persons. But I look at someone like Gordon Donaldson, who was an Assistant Keeper of the Scottish National Archives for years before he taught at Edinburgh. His work on the Scottish Reformation is outstanding and he was a reader in the Church of Scotland, yet you couldn't tell it from his history.

I guess I could sum up my thinking in wishing that more modern historians would have less of an 'agenda', and stick to presenting the facts.

-----Added 7/1/2009 at 02:05:57 EST-----

Wayne said:
Be sure to check out William Stanford Reid's book on Knox, The Trumpeter of God. I suspect you would find Reid to be very definitely of the old school in regards to how he approaches history, though he was writing in a 20th century context.

Also, and without attempting to answer your concluding question, here are two other resources on Knox out of the old Southern Presbyterian Review:

"John Knox as the English and as the Scottish Reformer," by Dr. Stuart Robinson:
http://www.pcahistory.org/HCLibrary/periodicals/spr/v27/27-3-2.pdf
and
http://www.pcahistory.org/HCLibrary/periodicals/spr/v28/28-1-1.pdf
Click to expand...


Reids book is in my bibliography.

Thank you for the note on Robinson.
 
Two thoughts as to why they do this:

(1) many books are modified Ph.D. dissertations and the writers must tread new ground or think of something new to say. Charge a historical personage with being a homosexual and, POW! you've got your book. I'm surprised this hasn't happened to poor Know yet. Didn't it already happen to Lincoln?

(2) Some writers try to correct previous biographies that are overly hagiographic. They are countering the revisionism of the past with the revisionism of the present.
 
Good thoughts......folks have already tried to hang Knox for illicit affairs with women he counseled and for re-marrying a woman much younger than he.

Revising the revisionism, eh?
 
Wayne said:
Also, and without attempting to answer your concluding question, here are two other resources on Knox out of the old Southern Presbyterian Review:

"John Knox as the English and as the Scottish Reformer," by Dr. Stuart Robinson:
http://www.pcahistory.org/HCLibrary/periodicals/spr/v27/27-3-2.pdf
and
http://www.pcahistory.org/HCLibrary/periodicals/spr/v28/28-1-1.pdf
Click to expand...


Wayne....very interesting to note that the above 2 articles you provided, reference Dr, Lorimer's monograph on Knox printed in 1875.

I was able to obtain a copy of this manuscript through Kessinger's Rare Reprints.

The discussion relates to Knox's supposed ill temper and harsh rhetoric. I have found this amusing in light of Knox's gentle pastoral nature, especially displayed in Frankfurt and Geneva.

I am convinced that this is nothing more than character assassination for Knox's failure to compromise in his discussions with the poor Queen Mary. His fearless defense of the gospel to the face of royal monarchy has not sat well with the historians. After all, Mary, Queen of Scots is a tremendously sympathetic and tragic historical figure. No matter she hated christianity and possessed the morals of an alley cat.

THIS is the very reason for my study.....what is sorely needed is a historical analysis of Knox from a theological/pastoral perspective.

In my study I have found Knox to be a reticent, almost insecure personage who took on a whole different personna when he climbed into the pulpit.

Thank you for these articles.
 
Tim:

What will you be doing with your study? An article? Dissertation? Book?

And what did you think of Stanford Reid's treatment?
 
Wayne.....it started out as an article and has taken on a life of it's own.

To really do justice to Knox and Scottish/English Reformation, one must cover an awful LOT of ground. In particular, Scottish history has an amazing amount of tentacles. To understand the social, political and theological context of the period requires a lot of careful analysis because of the personages involved. Talk about a revolving door.

Politics controlled everything in Scotland. The landowners pulled almost all the strings and were in constant conflict with the 'appointees' of the monarchy. Landowners were usually christian and the appointee's were mostly catholic. The Scottish Reformation was as much about wresting control from the state appointees, and the lands and money they controlled as it was about theological/spiritual reform.

On top of that Knox worked both the Scottish and the English sides. What a tangled web.


This project will hopefully be a book via the dissertation route. I'm looking into doing graduate work at St. Andrews in their Reformation Studies Institute. Nothing like going right to the source. Quite a bit of groundwork is yet to be done to accommodate that, but I've gotten quite a bit of assistance from two evangelical professors in the divinity school at St Andrews as well as several reformed pastors in the Church of Scotland who have their degrees from Edinburgh and Glasgow.

I have had a very interesting correspondance with the aforementioned Dr. Roger Mason at the Institute. Dr. Mason is the director of the Scottish Historical Research Institute and to date has published 2 books on Knox and 1 on George Buchanan. His 'specialty' is Scottish political thought and culture of the late rennaissance and early modern Scottish history.

To date, I have only browsed Reid's work, examining his sources. I'm working my way to it. I have had to organize my reading very carefully so as to not get out of the 'strings' of historical context that I have designated.

Then there's the temptation to get semi-off topic. For instance, I have a very nice biography of Reid by Donald McCleod. Had no idea Reid was a longtime trustee of Westminster seminary.

In short, there is a tremendous volume of material and to do justice to Knox and the reformation, one needs to have a very good grasp of Scottish history leading up to that period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top