Historiography (was Re: The Kingmaker's Daughter- More Questions)

Dear Johanne,

> Almost as a throwaway line, he said that history is the art of
> satisfying the academic standards that apply to the writing of
> history  satisfying other historians, in other words  rather than
> trying to accurately describe the past. That reduces it, in my
> view, to a strictly academic exercise and produces a powerful
> incentive to create works which will be accepted by one's peers,
> rather than being honest efforts to portray a part of the past.
> This is, I guess, what it means to be a postmodern historian.
> IMHO, that position is also a cynical one and morally bankrupt. So,
> bottom line  that is why I believe that people who believe, as we
> do, that Richard has not gotten a fair shake, have a greater
> responsibility and a heavier burden than people who propound the
> conventional wisdom as the gospel, even though on paper it may seem
> that their qualifications to write and publish far exceed ours.
> Rather than serving the cause of seeking historical truth and
> accuracy, they may be serving what they perceive as their fellows'
> expectations. Bah, humbug!

That's from someone in a Divinity school, not a historian: they're
big on myths and fairytales...

None of the historians I know would recognise his description of what
they do. I certainly don't. They disagree with each other on
interpreting a lot of things, but the bottom line is: is what you
write based on *evidence*? That's what matters. There are people who
have cut corners, who should know better. What truly annoys me are
the yards of 'popular' books by non-historians which rehash outdated
secondary sources  it's a huge problem with one period on which I've
done a lot of work  and the academics who sell out for the 'pop'
market and write tabloidese (à la Hicks).

cheers,
Marianne