it's generally more useful to compare historians to their original sources than to each other
Agreed, if we could have access to all original sources, being sure that they are actually *all* sources. Weren't many documents destroyed after Robespierre's death? Automatically, the side of his oponents will be better documented.
On returning to the great borderline between what is from left and what is from right, perhaps not that visible (or am I wrong?) in the USA or Western Europe, and not so painful when it comes to being manipulated. So what if you get an original document found by a right-winged historian if the person does not mention another document of equal value, witnessing something totally opposite. Same thing with the left-winged, they will minimalize certain things, like Terror, and expose others, like actual gains of the Revoultion. If you confront two contrary sides, it is probable to find documents that both sides "failed to mention". It's not the question of the historians' opinions, but of not alowing them to manipulate the sources, playing their own games with them. Are you aware of how many facts are they able to "forget to mention"? Perhaps you are. We learned about it painfully. Western European and American historical scholars have longer tradition of objectivism, with no such censorship and a duty to write everything you want to have published (and therefore actually read by people) according to Marxist philosophy.
I wonder how the French Revolution is now percieved by French historians, if there's any trend. A different type of censorship., I think - rather an authocensorship. When you're writing about your own country and nation, it's hard to write about its less "pretty" moments. Same thing in Poland, same thing probably everywhere.
As for methodology. If I know that a book was written by a Marxist, during my lecture I will beware of Marxist myths, if by a psychoanalyst - of psychoanalytical myths, if by a feminist and a gender studies specialist - well... ;) Every methodology uses its own simplifications and cliches. Theoretically, you should be aware of them all. It does not mean that while studying Robespierre you have to read a book written by a Marxist, psychoanalist and feminist (though I'd like to get the last two!;)). But if you know the theory of particular methodology, you know how to deal with it. You know what it omits and magnifies. And, as *every* methodology omits *something*, therefore, you acquaintance yourself with the second one to know what the first one did not mention because of its - inconvenience?
Critical reading is, as you say, essential, though I'm not exactly sure why you think it's any less essential for historians..."
I don't think that historians are more objective and critical readers just by being historians. It's not automatically obvious to me. Of course the historians will read critically, but that does not mean they will not try to play with actual truth. I don't think that the more sources you know, the more objective you are. There is always censorship, either forced from above, or your own.
The novel by Przybyszewska focuses on the relationship between Robespierre and Camille Desmoulins. Certain undertones more visible than in Danton's Affair, interesting psychological portrait of both.
no subject
Agreed, if we could have access to all original sources, being sure that they are actually *all* sources. Weren't many documents destroyed after Robespierre's death? Automatically, the side of his oponents will be better documented.
On returning to the great borderline between what is from left and what is from right, perhaps not that visible (or am I wrong?) in the USA or Western Europe, and not so painful when it comes to being manipulated. So what if you get an original document found by a right-winged historian if the person does not mention another document of equal value, witnessing something totally opposite. Same thing with the left-winged, they will minimalize certain things, like Terror, and expose others, like actual gains of the Revoultion. If you confront two contrary sides, it is probable to find documents that both sides "failed to mention". It's not the question of the historians' opinions, but of not alowing them to manipulate the sources, playing their own games with them. Are you aware of how many facts are they able to "forget to mention"? Perhaps you are. We learned about it painfully. Western European and American historical scholars have longer tradition of objectivism, with no such censorship and a duty to write everything you want to have published (and therefore actually read by people) according to Marxist philosophy.
I wonder how the French Revolution is now percieved by French historians, if there's any trend. A different type of censorship., I think - rather an authocensorship. When you're writing about your own country and nation, it's hard to write about its less "pretty" moments. Same thing in Poland, same thing probably everywhere.
As for methodology. If I know that a book was written by a Marxist, during my lecture I will beware of Marxist myths, if by a psychoanalyst - of psychoanalytical myths, if by a feminist and a gender studies specialist - well... ;) Every methodology uses its own simplifications and cliches. Theoretically, you should be aware of them all. It does not mean that while studying Robespierre you have to read a book written by a Marxist, psychoanalist and feminist (though I'd like to get the last two!;)). But if you know the theory of particular methodology, you know how to deal with it. You know what it omits and magnifies. And, as *every* methodology omits *something*, therefore, you acquaintance yourself with the second one to know what the first one did not mention because of its - inconvenience?
Critical reading is, as you say, essential, though I'm not exactly sure why you think it's any less essential for historians..."
I don't think that historians are more objective and critical readers just by being historians. It's not automatically obvious to me. Of course the historians will read critically, but that does not mean they will not try to play with actual truth. I don't think that the more sources you know, the more objective you are. There is always censorship, either forced from above, or your own.
The novel by Przybyszewska focuses on the relationship between Robespierre and Camille Desmoulins. Certain undertones more visible than in Danton's Affair, interesting psychological portrait of both.