[Discussion] History gets a life

[Paksoy, Hb]

History gets a life

Biography has been seen as the poor relation of history, but that might
change, says Amanda Foreman

[Timesonline; November 13, 2002]
=20
Once, when academic history was very young - in the 1850s - biography =
and
history co-existed in harmony. But the fundamental difference between =
the
two led to rivalries. Pronouncements by men such as Ralph Waldo Emerson =
and
Thomas Carlyle, that the "history of the world is but the biography of =
great
men", presented historians with a b=EAte noire; one they have been =
hunting
down ever since. Until this year, to the best of my knowledge, there =
was not
a history department in the world which offered a degree in biography.=20
The fact that the two disciplines have long been estranged is no doubt =
news
to many people. So I offer my own experiences as an example. I left =
Oxford
in 1998 with a doctorate in 18th-century British history. History is my
intellectual home, biography my craft. Last year I was hired by New =
York
University to teach a course on Historiography and the art of =
Biography; I
then discovered that my appointment had nothing to do with the History
Faculty. I had joined the Creative Writing Department.=20

This is not the place for a discussion on historiography but clearly, =
the
role of historians has changed. For a start, the discipline is much =
broader
since the 19th century; second, research now shares the limelight with =
the
application of theory, whether Marxist, feminist, or post-colonial; =
inspired
by Freud or Foucault. "Cutting edge" history refers to the method =
involved,
not the facts uncovered.=20

In consequence, some areas have flourished while others have withered. =
In
the United States labour history is wildly popular but only the larger
universities still teach diplomatic or military history. All three =
suffer
from the perception of being elitist and irrelevant to the important
questions about race, class and gender. The disciplines bear too close =
a
resemblance to Carlyle's "great men" theory to be taken seriously.=20

It is a shame, because Carlyle is a red herring. Historians accepted =
long
ago that the world is made up of men and women, rich and poor, European =
and
non-European. Moreover, we all agree that the history of anything is =
never
one narrative but the sum of many different parts. This is one reason =
why
theoretical frameworks are so useful. However, theory also makes it all =
too
easy to ignore the role of individuals in anything other than a =
mechanical
light. Oliver Cromwell and William Wilberforce become the end result of
forces rather than forces themselves. As one of my professors put it,
biography is impossible if your heroes are abstract nouns.=20

Happily, biography has never suffered the fashionable tyrannies or
interdepartmental rifts of its estranged sibling. No committee or =
single
individual has the kind of power base which exists in universities.
Biography remains a commercial enterprise. It is judged by reviewers =
and
book sales, thereby freeing writers from the dulling grip of =
departmental
orthodoxy.=20

Unfortunately, this freedom is coupled with almost total isolation from =
the
history community. Britain's leading biographer, Richard Holmes, was
recently awarded a professorship by the University of East Anglia. But =
the
appointment is in English and American studies, not the History =
department.
Graduate students in history do not have to study biography. Its =
methods are
rarely analysed, its aims not questioned.=20

The field remains, by and large, the domain of the "gifted amateur". It =
is a
testament to biography's vitality these so-called amateurs include =
Andrew
Roberts and Hillary Spurling. Although hacks do churn at books on Posh
Spice, the best biographers - the Peter Ackroyds and Claire Tomalins -
consistently demonstrate why they are held in such high esteem.=20

If the public shies away from academic history it is because, unlike
biography, it seems to lack narrative. Whereas in its simplest form,
biography is narrative. Furthermore, biography differs from history in =
the
way it treats causation. Several academics criticised my biography of
Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire for this reason. By concentrating on =
one
woman, they said, I did not explain the role of aristocratic women in
18th-century society. This is a fair comment. I would have needed to do =
a
wide-ranging study of 18th-century political women to make that kind of
meta-judgment. But to complain that mine failed to do this is like =
saying
that the London Underground fails as public transport because it only
services the capital.=20

The other difference between biography and history is the peculiar part
played by the biographer. Richard Holmes was the first to encapsulate =
the
modern meaning of biography in his peerless Footsteps: Adventures of a
Romantic Biographer. And if there is a popular school at the moment, =
one
might loosely term it the Holmesian Romantic, which searches the past =
for
glimpses of the human spirit. Today, the aim of the modern biographer =
is to
engage in a literary and artistic transformation. A friend of mine =
claims
that he once asked Michael Holroyd why he wrote biographies, to which =
the
reply was, "In order to understand myself". I apologise to Mr Holroyd =
if the
claim is untrue; yet the statement contains an artistic truth. In =
essence,
biography is the alchemy of art and science.=20

This is a far cry from history, whose chief purpose is to begin with =
the
question Why and end with the answer How. But in spite of the =
differences
the disciplines still have a great deal in common. Many of the most =
widely
respected historians employ narrative and are superb communicators. =
Apart
from the historians who are so good on television, one only has to =
think of
Linda Colley, Orlando Figes and Richard Evans, and another ten names =
come to
mind.=20

Moreover, there have been and still are great academic endeavours which =
will
always be beyond the means and scope of a single biographer. For =
example,
the Yale project which produced the 48 annotated volumes of Horace =
Walpole's
correspondence, and similar Oxford ventures on British writers such as
Edmund Burke and Fanny Burney. These meticulous and scholarly =
annotations
are the blood and bone of the past to which biography adds flesh and =
spirit.


It is now time to recognise that biography is not lesser history, but =
one of
its many branches. It uses the same tools; documents, diaries and
correspondence. It employs much of the same methodology: research,
comparison and interpretation. Furthermore, while not all good =
historians
need to be good biographers, the reverse is the sine qua non of the
biographer.=20

As I said at the beginning, until this year there was no such thing as =
a
degree in biography. This week marks the launch of the Centre for =
Editing
Lives and Letters at Queen Mary, London. Funded by the Arts and =
Humanities
Research Board, it will offer a two year Master of Research course. For =
the
first time biographers and historians will have the opportunity to work
together, to share ideas, offer critiques and learn from each other. A =
great
deal is riding on the success of the Centre. If it fulfils the ambition =
of
its two directors, Lisa Jardine and Alan Stewart, the skills required =
for
biography and scholarly editing will be saved, and new ones will be
developed. Even more important, one of the longest-running, and most =
futile
feuds in history will be over.=20


Amanda Foreman is giving the inaugural HarperCollins Biography Lecture =
at
the AHRB Centre for Editing Lives & Letters, Queen Mary, University of
London, tonight at 7 pm. Limited tickets (free) still available; =
reserve
yours by email: e.k.merchant@qmul.ac.uk
=20
=20
=20