Ο θάνατος του παρελθόντος

by J.H. Plumb, Αλέξανδρος Κιουπκιολής (Translator)

Στο βιβλίο αυτό ο J. H. Plumb διερευνά τους τρόπους με τους οποίους η ανθρωπότητα, από τις απαρχές του ιστορικού χρόνου, διαμορφώνει το παρελθόν, έτσι ώστε να προσδίδει κύρος και να νομιμοποιεί τους θεσμούς της κυβέρνησης, τις κοινωνικές δομές και την ηθική. Το παρελθόν έχει χρησιμεύσει για τη διαμόρφωση αντιλήψεων περί ιστορικής μοίρας που ενισχύουν τους στόχους της κοινωνίας και μας συμφιλιώνουν με την τύχη μας στον κόσμο. Στο κλασικό αυτό κείμενο, που περιλαμβάνει μια Εισαγωγή του Niall Ferguson και έναν Πρόλογο του Simon Schama, o J. H. Plumb εξετάζει κριτικά τη δύναμη νομιμοποίησης που έχει το παρελθόν, το πώς επηρεάζει την αντίληψη που έχουμε για την ιστορική μας μοίρα και τη σημασία του στη σύγχρονη εποχή.

Genres: History, Philosophy, Nonfiction

180 pages, Paperback

First published March 4, 1969

Reviews

[Satar Mahmoudi · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب برگرفته از سه سخنرانی و مقدمه مفصل مترجم هست. اگر جدی تاریخ بخوانید احتمالا موضوع کتاب برای شما بدیهی است ولی سیر تاریخی خوبی به شما میدهد. عباس امانت هم در مقدمه ارتباط این موضوع با تاریخ نویسی در ایران شرح داده است.

[Lawrence · Rating 3 out of 5]

Plumb makes a distinction between the "past" and "history." The past is a construction for social and political purposes. History, on the other hand, is concerned deeply with truth, the aim of which is to 'understand men both as individuals and in their social relationships in time." It is the "study of movement and change." In this book, Plumb argues that that "past is dying, its force weakening, and so it should. Indeed, the historian should speed it on its way, for it was compounded of bigotry, of national vanity, of class domination." He suggests that "history step into its shoes, help to sustain man's confidence in his destiny, and create for us a new past as true, as exact, as we can make it, that will help us achieve our identity, not as Americans or Russians, . . . black or white, rich or poor, but as men." But I think he's a little too premature in pronouncing the death of the past and way too optimistic about how well historians carry out their responsibilities for replacing the past with truth. HIs was perhaps a more optimistic time, a time of greater hope; the writing comes from 1969, after all. At least, in America, the past seems to have reared its ugly head, angry and vengeful and with a growing resilience; historians seems to have abandoned any pretense of or desire for creating a more true and exact past in favor of an insider's dialogue with themselves and their academic colleagues. What we seem to get is the proliferation of myth-expanding, populist biographies and the hero-worship of the "Founding Fathers" as a substitute for real history if we're not part of the academy. Sad and depressing. But maybe there some hope if more people should read Plumb's book, less as a celebration of the good things to come from, and more as a warning of what our constant glorification of the past can mean for our future.

[Sharad Pandian · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really like this book because the author palpably grapples with the question of what man's orientation to the intensifying death of the past should be. He recognizes that on one hand so much of what made life seem worthwhile and meaningful to various civilizations was their deployment of the past. At the same time, the past was used to sure up the authority of repressive societies where power was concentrated with a few. (Even if power is still concentrated with the few, they no longer have recourse to claims such as divine lineage, the mandate of heaven, divine right of kings, etc). Plumb seems to struggle with whether this is good or bad, and although the actual ending of the book is wildly optimistic about the potential of a past-free democratic society, his true genius comes out in deeply ambivalent passages like:

"The great Christian past, with its nineteenth century variations - for they were no more than variations- on that old majestic theme of man's fall and salvation, has collapsed. Rubble, broken arches, monuments crumbling to dust, roofs open to the sky litter this world of thought and loom forebodingly against the horizon. A strange collection of men walk amidst the debris, some full of lamentation, calling for urgent repairs, for an immediate restoration of the old house of the intellect; others climb on to a prominent broken pillar and in self-confident voices explain it all away; others are blind and stumble over the ruins not knowing what has happened. From none of this does humanity derive much comfort.

Can this litter of a dead past be cleared away? Can its subtle distortions, or its complex interrelations with all we think and feel, be eliminated from our intellectual heritage. Is to do so desirable, even if possible? And if possible, can man face the future with hope and with resolution without a sense of the past? And if not, can a new past, truer than the old, be manufactured to give him a like confidence? These problems, I venture to suggest, lie at the very heart of our society. And they are problems which no historian can ignore. For many centuries now history has burrowed like a death-watch beetle in this great fabric of the past, honeycombing the timbers and making the structure ruinous. Now that it has fallen, can the historian reconstruct a more viable past for mankind? Or is that like demanding of a surgeon that he gives up his skill and turns to the problem of creating life?"

[Trilby O'Farrell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Plumb writes at a time when social history, which he advocates, was becoming popular. He gives a history of history for the generalist or popular audience and suggests what he thinks is different about current (mid-twentieth century) history and where he thinks the discipline should go. By "the past" he means the use of the past to justify the powerful or determine future action. Instead of this mythical "past," he sees a field of study - "history" - that seeks to interpret (not just understand or explain) what has happened. Not only should we seek the "how" of the past (what actually happened), but we should go one step further to discover the "why." He cites Gibbon's Decline and Fall as an example of an early attempt at this kind of modern history, and suggests we looks to Gibbon's creativity as inspiration. Plumb calls history a "craft" and asks us to bring together factual knowledge with imagination.

Yes, it's old. A lot of this is now just taken for granted. It's still an interesting short read that puts that development - including how history is presented in popular culture and public school - into perspective. Despite some dated qualities, he's a historian who looked to the future.

[Jim · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book as the title indicates shows how we have lost touch with our past, our roots. The early portion of the book discusses the function of history in traditional societies from China, Israel to Rome and more. Common conciousness, morality and vision for life was communicated in the telling of history.

The fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Christian Empire is shown to have the capacity to renvision history from both a biblical worldview with accomodation for pagan myth. Plumb suggest constant adaptation of Christian prophecy as time lingered. But of course Christianity pasted on to the west the sense of purpose and destiny.

Emlightenment visions of history that replaced the Christian vision were nationalistic and imperialistic. The result is what we have inherited in the postmodern context.

The book is helpful for me as a Christian to see how we need a vision of history and how we are to relate to a contemporary scene where people are very sensitive to the issues of power and morality.

[Georgina Koutrouditsou · Rating 3 out of 5]

Επίκαιρο σε πολλά σημεία του,αλλά δεν παύει να έχει γραφτεί το 1968.
Έκτοτε έχουν αλλάξει πολλά στον τομέα της Ιστορίας(σπουδές,μελέτες κτλ.).Ωστόσο για την εποχή του θα ήταν επαναστατικό!