You mistake my meaning (though perhaps I worded it badly). I should have said one should compare a historian with *the* sources, which must also be read critically. Taking someone else's selection of sources for granted is about the same as taking their opinions for granted and this is never wise.
I actually don't think what you've said of French historians is generally true--at least not in recent years. It's certainly true of the 19th and the first part of the 20th centuries though. This is not to say that they do not have their biases, because obviously everyone does, but historians from countries that have been historically inimical to France and to the Revolution have their own biases which are often even stronger and which they are generally more reluctant to admit.
I certainly don't mean to suggest that one should adopt only one approach to studying history. To look at the Revolution entirely through the lens of, say, gender studies, would be to miss a lot. But it takes all kinds. My main criterium is that I cannot respect a historian who lies to make history more interesting or to support his or her views. But lying, I mean putting words into historical figures mouths that can't be found in any credible historical source, or worse, any historical source at all, or deliberately contradicting a "known" fact just in passing, without giving any reason or even acknowledging that one is doing so. I've seen both of these topics, as well as extreme distortion in certain "historians", and that, I can't abide, whatever their viewpoint.
I should also point out that when I say that critical reading is essential for historians, I don't mean that it's necessarily practiced by all of them, merely that it should be, ideally.
That does sound like an interesting novel. A pity it's only available in Polish.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-06-08 03:02 pm (UTC)I actually don't think what you've said of French historians is generally true--at least not in recent years. It's certainly true of the 19th and the first part of the 20th centuries though. This is not to say that they do not have their biases, because obviously everyone does, but historians from countries that have been historically inimical to France and to the Revolution have their own biases which are often even stronger and which they are generally more reluctant to admit.
I certainly don't mean to suggest that one should adopt only one approach to studying history. To look at the Revolution entirely through the lens of, say, gender studies, would be to miss a lot. But it takes all kinds. My main criterium is that I cannot respect a historian who lies to make history more interesting or to support his or her views. But lying, I mean putting words into historical figures mouths that can't be found in any credible historical source, or worse, any historical source at all, or deliberately contradicting a "known" fact just in passing, without giving any reason or even acknowledging that one is doing so. I've seen both of these topics, as well as extreme distortion in certain "historians", and that, I can't abide, whatever their viewpoint.
I should also point out that when I say that critical reading is essential for historians, I don't mean that it's necessarily practiced by all of them, merely that it should be, ideally.
That does sound like an interesting novel. A pity it's only available in Polish.