What Was History?: The Art of History in Early Modern Europe Book

It is easy to assume that modern concepts of history are just that - modern. In this fascinating little book, Grafton shows that as early as the late 1400s, scholars started to question the accuracy and bias of the famous classical historians in ways that feel shockingly contemporary. They began to cast doubt on the veracity of the speeches that play such a central role in many works, identify errors in geography and technology, recognise elements of bias and omission, and even understand the core principle of the author as an unconscious reflection of their own time. This led to a great flowering of the 'ars historica', with scholars across Europe assessing their sources in a newly-critical light. However, Grafton also shows how the new approach suffered from fatal flaws, which caused it to crumble away, almost to be forgotten.

Although the scholars had sought to escape from the shadow of history as a branch of rhetoric, where the main purpose of studying ancient authors was to learn how to make powerful speeches and to seek examples to guide the behaviour of politicians in their own times, Grafton shows that they were unable to do this fully. Even as they were highlighting the need to place all classical authors into their unique context and recognising their flaws and biases, the scholars still saw the study of history primarily as a timeless guide for action in their own time. This contradiction inherent in the approach led to the whole approach being swept away.

Despite being deeply researched and highly academic - the footnotes occupy half and more of many pages in the text, this is also a surprisingly readable work, with a number of flashes of subtle humour. For those wishing to understand some of the early trends in modern historiography, this is an excellent place to begin.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that, at least when I was at school in the early 1980s, the study of ancient texts had barely moved on from the 15th century, with Thucydides and Tacitus studied more for their literary merit and beautiful prose than for their historical rigour, and a major focus on the brilliance of their speeches, with only the odd nod in recognition that these were largely fabrications.