Everything you mention here about Hampson is true, and I can see why you would appreciate him compared to other English historians. I don't really object to the literary style of "Life and Opinions" so much as it's frequent lack of straightforwardness--to fall back on the example I used earlier, I'm nearly certain that what he was trying to say was not that a priest would like Robespierre, but that Robespierre was like a priest, which is not really the same thing. I prefer historians who are upfront about those kinds of things. Also, the sarcastic comments irked me a bit, but I suppose that's rather a minor point.
Mainly, my issue is: Hampson is all right as far as English historians go, but I've read so many French historians that are just a cut above anything I've read in English (with a few notable exceptions such as Timothy Tackett and some French historians who write in English, like J-P Gross), that I don't really have much patience for him--or most other English historians, for that matter.
(Not that all French historians are good--Furet being a, or perhaps the, case in point--or all English historians bad, but one thing that definitely turns me off the latter group is the annoying tendency of many of them to write in such a way that says, "I am English. This book is being written from the perspective of an Englishman. Since I'm contractually obligated to dislike the French, let me insert some stereotypes about them or even some jokes at their expense, even though this does not help my analysis in the least. Robespierre was very unusual for a Frenchman, wasn't he? Did I mention that I'm English?" ad nauseam, though obviously, I'm exaggerating to make a point. Typically, at least. By the way, lest it sound like I'm picking on the English in particular, American historians have been known to do this as well--I just happen to know of more American than English historians who manage to avoid it, or at least keep it to their introductions instead of constantly inserting it into the main text.)
By the way, it would make a great deal of sense of Irwin were based on Schama. "It doesn't matter what the truth is; that's not what you're looking for. What you really want is to make a sensation!"
![[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: 2009-07-17 12:59 am (UTC)Everything you mention here about Hampson is true, and I can see why you would appreciate him compared to other English historians. I don't really object to the literary style of "Life and Opinions" so much as it's frequent lack of straightforwardness--to fall back on the example I used earlier, I'm nearly certain that what he was trying to say was not that a priest would like Robespierre, but that Robespierre was like a priest, which is not really the same thing. I prefer historians who are upfront about those kinds of things. Also, the sarcastic comments irked me a bit, but I suppose that's rather a minor point.
Mainly, my issue is: Hampson is all right as far as English historians go, but I've read so many French historians that are just a cut above anything I've read in English (with a few notable exceptions such as Timothy Tackett and some French historians who write in English, like J-P Gross), that I don't really have much patience for him--or most other English historians, for that matter.
(Not that all French historians are good--Furet being a, or perhaps the, case in point--or all English historians bad, but one thing that definitely turns me off the latter group is the annoying tendency of many of them to write in such a way that says, "I am English. This book is being written from the perspective of an Englishman. Since I'm contractually obligated to dislike the French, let me insert some stereotypes about them or even some jokes at their expense, even though this does not help my analysis in the least. Robespierre was very unusual for a Frenchman, wasn't he? Did I mention that I'm English?" ad nauseam, though obviously, I'm exaggerating to make a point. Typically, at least. By the way, lest it sound like I'm picking on the English in particular, American historians have been known to do this as well--I just happen to know of more American than English historians who manage to avoid it, or at least keep it to their introductions instead of constantly inserting it into the main text.)
By the way, it would make a great deal of sense of Irwin were based on Schama. "It doesn't matter what the truth is; that's not what you're looking for. What you really want is to make a sensation!"