Customer Reviews

A History of Histories: Epics, Chronicles, Romances and Inquiries from Herodotus and Thucydides to the Twentieth Century

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This splendid book gives us the flavour of Western historians from the Ancient Greeks to the Twentieth Century. Burrow does not neglect the Philosophy of History, but that is not his main concern: rather does he bring out the personality of the historians through their writings and how their books have been shaped by their own times and their own experiences. Plentiful quotations from their works illustrate the book; they are beautifully chosen, and a pleasure to read in themselves.

Burrow is very good on tracing the influence of the historians of Greece and Rome on the historians of much later centuries - of Tacitus on Gibbon, to give just one example. About a third of the book is rightly devoted to Antiquity. We are reminded how deservedly Antiquity is regarded, in this field also, as one of the cradles of European thought, and how extraordinarily relevant the experiences of the Ancient World are to our own. This was known among the educated classes in the days when Herodotus and Thucydides, Livy and Tacitus were a staple of education: they found these classics an inexhaustible fund of enlightenment and understanding of political processes, providing models as well as warnings

Certainly there is a sad falling off after the classical period. The early Christian historians abandoned the aim of being impartial, relentlessly promoted orthodox Christianity and implacably blackened the unorthodox. Where historians like Eusebius and Bede did have a philosophy to guide them, they traced what they saw as God's plan in history; but a lesser man, like the 6th century Bishop Gregory of Tours, to whom Burrow devotes an amusing chapter (he calls him `Trollope with bloodshed'), seems to show, in his mistitled History of the Franks, nothing at all of what we could recognize as philosophical reflections - though with or without such reflections, we can of course learn much about the ways of life and preoccupations that he depicts.

The same is broadly true of the medieval annals and chronicles to which Burrow devotes a solid chunk of his book. In Froissart's Chronicles we learn much about the code of chivalry between knights (though the code does not apply to the treatment of commoners). Burrow extracts some vivid or entertaining material from them, and he is often a witty and entertaining commentator himself. He remarks that we should not expect narrative or thematic connections in annals: `we should think instead of a newspaper whose time scale is the year, not the day. We are ourselves unperturbed by the most diverse news stories appearing in juxtaposition, ...' The scurrilous 13th century chronicler Matthew Paris reminds Burrow `of a modern tabloid editor: disrespectful, populist, xenophobic, and anti-intellectual', and an attempt to bowdlerize him would be `like trying to de-vein Gorgonzola'.

However, Renaissance historians, like Bruni, Machiavelli and Guiccardini, modelled themselves once again on the histories of ancient Rome and Greece. Like them, they were fine stylists and sometimes invented speeches; looked for lessons that history could teach; saw patterns of order degenerating into disorder until order was reestablished; lamented the decline of the republican virtues and the decline of freedom; were cynical (realistic?) about how rulers maintain themselves in power; and were interested in the intricate relationships between neighbouring and competing states.

During the Renaissance also we first find an interest in Antiquarianism, research not only into the sources of Roman Law, but also into the Customary Law of the `barbarians' which Roman Law replaced or absorbed. The discovery of these more ancient sources and of the `immemorial rights' of subjects will play a part in the struggle against absolutism in the 16th century France and 17th century England, and, in the hands of William Stubbs in the 19th century, in the progression of English liberties down to his own time.

As the book moves into the discussions of historians in the 17th and 18th century, it becomes slightly heavier going and is not lit up as often by shafts of Burrow's wit, though one of these historians, Edward Gibbon, compensates for this with his own, thankfully mined by Burrow.

For the 19th century we have two superlative sections contrasting Macaulay and Carlyle - all they have in common is that they both `stand at the apex of a long movement, before austere professionalism spoiled the game, to render history for the reader in its full sensuous and emotional immediacy and circumstantiality'.

These sections are followed by one brilliantly contrasting 19th century French historians, notably Michelet and Taine, showing how the French Revolution continued to be subject to different and passionate interpretations.

Another section also deals beautifully with contrasts, this time between the sober way in which Bernal Diaz describes the conquest of Mexico in which he had himself taken part and the more Gibbonesque version of the subject by W.H.Prescott in the mid-19th century. Another American historian whom Burrow describes with infectious sympathy is Francis Parkman, the evocative 19th century chronicler of the American Indians' 17th century encounters with the French (who sometimes went native) and the British (whose victory over the French was a disaster for the Indians).

Burrow's last two chapters deal with the professionalization of history: its introduction into the universities as independent faculties; its consequent bureaucratization; its aim in the late 19th century, under German influence, to be like a science; and, in the 20th century, in its conscious obedience to rival philosophies of history and the influence that other disciplines exert on it. It became more technical and more specialized. Analysis of structure became more fashionable than narrative. There was an explosion in the number of historians and in the areas of life that are of interest to them. These chapters are worthy rather than inspiring - possibly Burrow himself is less inspired by that kind of history: he treats no individual work of history with the expansiveness which he had bestowed on earlier works.

I hope the success of this book will lead to a reprint of the author's book on Victorian historians.

John W. Burrow is a professor of that somewhat orphaned discipline "history of ideas", or intellectual history. Burrow approaches 'A History of Histories' as an intellectual historian, and not a critic. That means you won't find critiques regarding historical accuracy. Instead Burrow emphasizes the general character of the historians achievement, relying on the work of specialized scholars and biographers: the biography lists many excellent "secondary" sources a few of which Burrow has relied heavily on.

Burrows is, in a sense, a popularizer of some the most important histories, his goal being to "give a sense of the experience of reading these histories and what may be enjoyable about them"; he assumes that you have not read or even heard of the works. Such an approach, which mixes interpretation and summary, allows Burrow to cover a great number of works across time - from Herodotus to the late 20th century - but at some cost: a reader may feel they understand the significance of a work, but a connected developing narrative seems unclear; and while there are many block quotes (in particular with the earlier authors), often one yearns for more of a taste of the work.

How can one create a narrative of a "history of histories"? Burrow examines the ideas of the past, and how today we stand in relation to those ideas as expressed in history books. These themes include the emerging conception of a distinct European identity contrasted with Asia; ideas of republican virtue in early Rome, supposedly corrupted by conquest and vice; the Bible's narrative of transgression, punishment and redemption; the idea of an early Germanic state of "freedom" as the ultimate basis for modern constitutional democracy; 19th century ideas of nationalism; 20th century divergences into many genres, none of which dominate.

At its best, 'A History of Histories' conveys the imaginative energies of some of the worlds most famous and important historians. In the end books such as this really only matter if they send us off -- for the first or 10th time -- to read Gibbon's account of a Fall, Xenophon's travels through the desert or Parkman's epic of the New World. My copy is marked up with new histories to (re)discover.

I have always been a history nut, reading history after history throughout my life. And one cannot read these histories without realizing that there is a difference between the way the historians viewed their subjects, and how they went about recording history. In this fascinating book, author and noted historian, John Burrow, examines the historians, putting them within their historic framework, and showing how they viewed their subjects.

As each historian is unveiled - Herodotus, Thucydides, Zenophon, and on and on - you get an understanding of what the historian was saying and how he understood his subject. Even more, you get to see how the understanding of "history" has changed throughout the unfolding of Western society.

Overall, I found this to be a thoroughly absorbing book. I really enjoy history, and now I see how a "history" is part of history, with a context to it. If you enjoy reading non-modern histories, you really should read this book. I does a great job of taking you behind the words, to what the author was truly saying and why. I think that this is a truly monumental work, one that is sure to please any history buff.

John Burrow summarizes and analyzes a host of histories in this book, starting with Herodotus, and hitting most of the major western historical writers. I enjoy history, and I am interested in how historians do their work. I find that history itself is more interesting than the details of historical research, but John Burrow makes it all alluring and lively. The story deals with an academic subject, but this is a book for the general reader.

The introduction and prologue deal with historical techniques in a dry, pedantic tone, and I was afraid that it would be heavy going, but in chapter one it picked up quickly, and I was hooked. Although the narrative never reads like an edge of the seat thriller, I found myself thinking about it longingly during work or other busy times. Burrow makes the historians and their stories come alive, until some of them feel like old friends. He includes generous excerpts of many writers. If you have an interest in history, or the craft of researching and writing history, you should read this book. It will stimulate you to read the original writings.

Some reviewers have criticized the focus on western European history, and indeed that is the focus. I was untroubled by this. Burrow stays within his field of expertise, as a wise author should. This is a book that has earned a place on my shelf, and I believe that I will refer to it frequently during the years ahead.

This book was suggested to me when I took a historiography class...it is a VERY thorough compendium of the various 'schools of thought' on the study and writing of history, as both an art and a science. Not for the unwashed masses....it's extremely in-depth and better suited for academics, students, researchers/writers or serious history geeks (like me). It is chock-full of fascinating insights for history lovers.

A History of Histories is an idiosyncratic work filled with a kaleidoscope of insights that derive from the author's broad education and lifetime of reading. At his best, Burrow seems like an animated tour guide pointing us to histories that we have never read and never will read: "Bet you've not thought about William Robertson. Well, let me tell you what's important about his History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V (1769). And then Carlyle--how about his peculiar and evocative prose style?"

What one should not expect of Burrow is a systematic study of great historians or western historiography. Everyone can choose his own favorite examples of imbalance. Ancient Greek historians get more space than the entire twentieth century. Geoffrey of Monmouth, the egregious medieval mythmaker, gets five and a half pages to Leopold von Ranke's three at best. Among Americans, William Hickling Prescott gets eight pages, Charles Beard a sentence and a half.

I also think Burrow has slighted the influence of the religion of the Bible in the development of western historiography. He postpones consideration of the Book itself until after all the ancients, although anyone guessing at the dates of composition for what Herbert Butterfield calls the "Court History of David" (I & II Samuel) would probably place it several centuries before Herodotus and would also probably, like Butterfield, credit it with "an amazing impartiality and independence." Then too, much of the praise bestowed on Enlightenment historians should, in my opinion, be attributed to the outworking of the Reformation. Likewise, nineteenth-century historicists reflect the soft glow of German pietism at their backs.

In the end, A History of Histories is still the finest piece of historigraphical literature written for the educated general reader in our generation. It's an eccentric smorgasbord of delights. If there are too many kinds of artichokes, there is still plenty of steak on the table.

A book which surveys the history of historical writing might not sound too appealing, but you'd be wrong to pass this jewel by just because of the somewhat forbidding title. A History of Histories is a treasure trove of fascinating information about the craft of historiography, from its early practitioners in Greece down to the late twentieh century's newest interpretations.

Most people have heard of Herodotus and Thucydides, and they may have run across references to Livy, Tacitus, and William of Monmouth from time to time. John Burrow describes these historians, traces their contexts, and explains their interpretations and points of view along with many lesser-known but important historians like Xenophon, Gregory of Tours, and Michelet. The work is massive, nearly 500 pages, but it rarely bogs down or becomes tedious because Burrow has the gift of describing even the most complex interpretations succinctly. Even more important, he isn't afraid to make a few sardonic asides here and there, lessening the air of gravity which threatens to prevail at times. I chuckled over his comments on the family tree of the Herodians and his explanation for the names of his old school's houses.

A History of Histories is to be read and savored both for its wealth of knowledge and for its well crafted language.

A History of Histories is an ambitious book that attempts to show the developments in the writing of history over the span of around 2,500 years. The author examines who some of these major historians were, what topics they considered worthy of recording, what their strengths and weaknesses were ,and lastly, how history became professionalized.

I found the first section of Burrow's book easier to follow since I have read some of the works of the ancient Greek and Roman historians detailed here. I wasn't as familiar with the works of the later historians, though I have heard of several of these figures. This part was a slower read as my knowledge of these historians and their works was not as strong. The author has an impressive knowledge of so many of these figures and their works.

The author does a good job in tracing the developments in the writing of history and who some of the representative historians from each major period were. Obviously it is also important to know a little about the world around them at their time and how that influenced their writings, which the author also touches on. Epics, chronicles, annals, universal histories, socioeconomic, cultural, political/diplomatic histories and the likes are all included in this broad overview. Indeed, the evolution in the writing of history becomes clear in this book. The author aptly concludes by stating this is a story that doesn't end. An erudite, but challenging read in places, at least for me.

I purchased this book for school, but I am extremely excited its on the reading list. This book takes the reader on a fascinating trip back in time!

I studied history at school, and then at university. Some periods I found fascinating; others left me completely cold (and bored). But it was also very frustrating, in my first year at uni, to be asked questions like "What do you think of Lewis Namier's work on 18th century politics?" or "Do you agree with the Whig interpretation of history?" - when I had never heard of either. Historiography is a more abstract subject than history itself; indeed, it is what we might nowadays call "metahistory" - the history of writing history. And that is what John Burrow has set out to explain in this excellent and (mostly) very readable book. I only wish it had existed, and someone had given it to me, in my last year at school!

If you read "A History of Histories" from cover to cover, you will probably learn a great deal (unless you are already an expert on the subject). Its subject matter can be divided into three main areas: an overview of great swathes of history itself; an account of many of the greatest historians since the time of the ancient Greeks; and a comparative study of the different ways of writing history, and the reasons for doing so. But these three topics are not treated consecutively, but intertwined together. For instance, in one of the earliest chapters we see how Thucydides - one of the greatest of historians - retold and analysed the events of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. For Thucydides, according to Burrow, "the chief quality to be sought in writing history is certainty"; yet he, like all the ancient historians, was perfectly happy to write down long speeches which were no doubt pieced together from memory or even largely made up.

Even though the systematic study of primary and secondary sources was not to become established practice until the 19th century, it has always been possible to adopt a more or less rigorous attitude to objective truth when writing history. Others, like many of the Roman historians - and especially the Christian writers who followed them - were more concerned to inculcate right thinking and virtuous behaviour, not scrupling to invent whatever episodes seemed most suitable for that purpose. And even in the 20th century, ideologically motivated scholars such as the Marxists were still using history to argue their own particular points of view.

For my money, the early parts of this book are the best. The sections on Greek and Roman historians are superb, and answered many longstanding questions for me. Then, with the advent of the Dark Ages, history dipped into a trough of religious admonition and fanciful invention - culminating in the entertainingly fictional chronicles of writers like Geoffrey of Monmouth. I found the author's account of Renaissance historiography (in the chapter "From Civic Chronicle to Humanist History") to be the most indigestible part of the book, although that may be due to the intrinsic difficulty of the subject. Inevitably, as more and more people started writing history in different ways and for different reasons, the story of historiography becomes progressively more complicated and opaque. Much to his credit, the author maintains an even pace and a consistent treatment right up to the 20th century.