What Was History?: The Art of History in Early Modern Europe

by Anthony Grafton

From the late fifteenth century onwards, scholars across Europe began to write books about how to read and evaluate histories. These pioneering works grew from complex early-modern debates about law, religion, and classical scholarship. Anthony Grafton's book is based on his Trevelyan Lectures of 2005, and it proves to be a powerful and imaginative exploration of some central themes in the history of European ideas. Grafton explains why so many of these works were written, why they attained so much insight – and why, in the centuries that followed, most scholars gradually forgot that they had existed. Elegant and accessible, What was History? is a deliberate evocation of E. H. Carr's celebrated Trevelyan Lectures on What is History?

Genres: History, Academic, School, Renaissance

330 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 2007

About the author

Anthony Thomas Grafton is an American historian of early modern Europe and the Henry Putnam University Professor of History at Princeton University, where he is also the Director the Program in European Cultural Studies. He is also a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a recipient of the Balzan Prize. From January 2011 to January 2012, he served as the President of the American Historical Association. From 2006 to 2020, Grafton was co-executive editor of the Journal of the History of Ideas.

Reviews

[Charlie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid content by a sterling scholar is marred by misleading marketing (pardon my alliteration).

This is not the book the cover (front or back) claims it is. The hitch is the subtitle, "The Art of History." The book looks like a general introduction to historiography in early modern Europe. Instead, it contains the published versions of four not very introductory lectures on the much narrower topic of the ars historica, a genre of historical writing. The lectures are masterful; Grafton blends content and style effortlessly. However, this book is not particularly accessible to the non-specialist. It urgently requires an introduction explaining the are historica and the tradition of scholarship on it with which Grafton is interacting. (I may have missed it, but I do not believe Grafton ever gives a definition of his subject matter.)

This book will be of interest to far fewer people than the cover suggests. Yet those truly interested in and already somewhat knowledgeable about the topic could scarcely do better.

[Martin Samuels · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is easy to assume that modern concepts of history are just that - modern. In this fascinating little book, Grafton shows that as early as the late 1400s, scholars started to question the accuracy and bias of the famous classical historians in ways that feel shockingly contemporary. They began to cast doubt on the veracity of the speeches that play such a central role in many works, identify errors in geography and technology, recognise elements of bias and omission, and even understand the core principle of the author as an unconscious reflection of their own time. This led to a great flowering of the 'ars historica', with scholars across Europe assessing their sources in a newly-critical light. However, Grafton also shows how the new approach suffered from fatal flaws, which caused it to crumble away, almost to be forgotten.

Although the scholars had sought to escape from the shadow of history as a branch of rhetoric, where the main purpose of studying ancient authors was to learn how to make powerful speeches and to seek examples to guide the behaviour of politicians in their own times, Grafton shows that they were unable to do this fully. Even as they were highlighting the need to place all classical authors into their unique context and recognising their flaws and biases, the scholars still saw the study of history primarily as a timeless guide for action in their own time. This contradiction inherent in the approach led to the whole approach being swept away.

Despite being deeply researched and highly academic - the footnotes occupy half and more of many pages in the text, this is also a surprisingly readable work, with a number of flashes of subtle humour. For those wishing to understand some of the early trends in modern historiography, this is an excellent place to begin.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that, at least when I was at school in the early 1980s, the study of ancient texts had barely moved on from the 15th century, with Thucydides and Tacitus studied more for their literary merit and beautiful prose than for their historical rigour, and a major focus on the brilliance of their speeches, with only the odd nod in recognition that these were largely fabrications.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

meanderings upon some rather esoteric concerns

[Tony Gualtieri · Rating 5 out of 5]

A witty and learned look at academic controversies over 400 years old. Surprisingly modern ideas on the theory of history are mixed with woefully archaic beliefs taken from Latin texts on ars historica. Textural criticism of sources, the place of imagined speeches, and the purpose of historical writing are all debated. There is also a long section on the proper organization of the historian's notebook. This very readable book gives a glimpse of the sophistication of thought that existed at the time.

[E.A.M. Van · Rating 5 out of 5]

Erg leuk boek! Besproken met de auteur, tesamen met Marika Keblusek en Dirk van Miert, in het Historisch Cafe van 25 februari 2009. What was History? brengt de Republiek der Letteren in kaart vanaf de herontdekking van de klassieken in de Renaissance. Grafton laat ondermeer zien dat de geschiedtheoretische en filologische issues die in de vroegmoderne tijd onder geleerde Europeanen speelden een opvallende overeenkomst vertonen met 19de en 20ste eeuwse debatten. Mocht eraan getwijfeld worden; There definitely was life before Spinoza!