Historiography

If you conduct any level of serious study in the historical field you are going to come across the term historiography often. It is a basis for scholarly historical work and every historian and author uses it. You might have even done so without realizing it. Ever check out a few books or articles when you had to write a history paper? Maybe you dropped in a few quotations from the author to make your paper sound good? If so, you engaged in some basic historiography. You looked into what others had to say on the subject. You found out what previous authors had determined or interpreted about historical events. Every graduate student in a historical field takes a class on historiography as a core requirement prior to taking classes on historical periods or events, and then the theme of historiography is ever-present in classes to follow. This is because graduate school is a step above the names, dates, and places of your typical undergraduate work. I am drawing a generic description here for the purposes of explaining the type of content typically presented in undergraduate verses graduate work, so please remember I understand that some undergraduate work, at some colleges can be pretty in-depth. But this site is designed to engage with all levels of learners interested in the historical period of the American Revolution and the study of history in general, therefore I am hoping to illustrate the purpose and use of historiography in high level historical study.

Princeton University Library defines historiography as the following:  "Historiography deals with the writing of history. In  the broadest sense, it is the study of the history of history (as it is  described by historians). Historiography has several facets, but for the  purposes of a researcher trying to situate his work in the context of  other historians' work on a particular topic, the most useful thing is  the historiographic essay or review article that summarizes changing  ideas about and approaches to the topic. A really good historiographic  essay will also address why historians' ideas have changed."

Are you still confused? You are not alone. 

This definition is however, one of the more simplistic and to the point I was able to find. Historiography has evolved over time to carry multiple meanings for professional scholars, but in its basic form one must grasp, it is the study of what historians and scholars have written on a topic prior to the present time you reside in. It represents the interpretations they offered with their work. Whatever they have written and submitted to the historical record contributes to  the interpretations we may refer to as the historiography of a subject. Before we look at an example to illustrate historiography in a way that hopefully clears up the meaning for you, it must be made clear that historiography evolves. 

How does it evolve?    

Historiography evolves as interpretations change. How can historians change their minds you ask? Well, it is not exactly that simple. It should not be thought of as changing one’s mind. Rather, interpretations change as different historians process historical events through the lens of the time they live in. Let us examine a brief example with a basic overview of the historiography of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The first histories of the Convention were written by people close to the participants, were basic in nature, and kind to the delegates. These histories made little or no mention of the Convention’s overlook of slavery or equality in America. They also tended to claim that the delegates were the best and the brightest in America, men above reproach, almost demigods as it were. Later the historical profession began to develop and working as a professional historian was coming into its own. Those historians took a more balanced approach, yet still lived in a time where equality and social circumstances were not all that different from the Framers’ own time, so their views were not widely different. While the work was well done, employing modern historical methods, such as footnotes and evidence, it was not yet fully developed.

Professional historians really matured as the profession grew and educational institutions began offering graduate level historical degrees. These early historians were educated and lived in the Progressive Era and viewed the Convention in contrast with their own time. To them, the Convention was a failure, even a power grab. Revolutionary works such as Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, published in 1913 argued that the Framers were simply motivated by self-aggrandizement and keeping their wealth within their own class. He argued justice, liberty, and equality were a bit of a smoke screen to hide the enrichment of themselves through things like slavery and the government’s ability to control commerce. Others followed Beard’s lead around that time and the theories took some foothold in American historical thinking.

 The next generation however, of age and educated in an ever-changing world that witnessed civil rights and America become a superpower, took a different approach. They tended to argue the Framers were moral men who set up a system that allowed for democracy and growth, but fell short of their ultimate responsibility of equality. They charged them with ducking the obvious questions, such as slavery.

Those who followed built upon this scholarship and completed most of their work in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a time where conservatism and patriotism crept into American politics and the media, along with Ronald Reagan and others praising the Founders. This generation firmly began to dispute the work of those such as Beard, and argued that the Framers were not only the best and the brightest of their time, but that they did the best they could with the circumstances they were faced with. Their failure to solve the slavery issue for example, was no failure at all, it was simply the circumstances of the time. During this time praise of the Founders was high.  From America’s Bicentennial through the end of the century the Framers enjoyed immense respect in the public eye. 

Academics were beginning to look deeper however by the turn of the century. 

That brings us to our modern school of thought in the historiography of the Convention. Currently we see a bit of a hybrid. Modern historians recognize the Framers gifts, as well as their faults, make very few excuses for their failure to fix certain issues, and yet credit them in a context that also points out their obvious hypocrisy and moral failures at times.

There is an incredible political split within the United States at this time and you may see that with certain works of “history” that go too far. You might see work that vilifies the Framers or argues that if you do not worship them you are not patriotic. Please ask yourself if these are truly works of “history.” It is likely they are not. The Constitutional Convention is one specific example from within the American Revolution, but these evolutions of historical interpretation take place throughout all fields of Revolution historiography, and any other historical genre for that matter. 

It is my hope that you now have an understanding of what historiography is and how it evolves. I also hope you have a clearer picture of how historians go about their work. Historians view the past through their modern lens. You and I find it impossible to believe that there was a time when one human being was allowed to own another, but for the historian writing in 1850 that was an everyday facet of life, so their failure to address the Framer’s shortcomings is understood better when you consider this. Please notice I said better understood, I did not excuse or condone it. My goal here is to teach you how and why it happens, not to defend or condemn the work of individual historians. One of this site’s goals is to educate you to operate like a historian. 

Please remember to consider historiography when you read about the Revolution. Ask yourself when was this work written? Who wrote it? Where were they educated? What are their arguments? Did any part of their argument reflect their own life or experience? Keep asking those questions. Never stop asking. It is perfectly fine to read a book about history from a television host you love watching that recently authored a book about something historical. Just remember when you read it to consider the factors we covered here. If you do it for professional historians then you should do it for amateur historians too. 

In closing, people might think historians spend all those years at graduate school learning about history! Not really. They do not spend their time on the who, what, when, and where of historical events. They spend their time learning how to be a historian, and historiography is at the bedrock of that education. If you think you have a pretty good grasp on historiography now, feel free to read a book on the historiography or historiography! Yes, they do exist, and yes, they will make your head hurt. But if you do want more depth on this topic, please look into some of these excellent sources. 

John Higham: History: Professional Scholarship in America.1965

Michael Bentley, Modern Historiography: An Introduction. 1999. 

Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession, 1988.

Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern 3rd ed. 2007