Reading History Without Judgement

I am currently reading Hilary Mantle's phenomenal Wolf Hall (a must read for Tudorphiles and Anglopihles alike.)  In an interview with The Guardian, Mantel sets out how she approached writing a historical novel about Thomas Cromwell and 16th-century Tudor England:

Her aim was to place the reader in "that time and that place, putting you into Henry's entourage. The essence of the thing is not to judge with hindsight, not to pass judgment from the lofty perch of the 21st century when we know what happened. It's to be there with them in that hunting party at Wolf Hall, moving forward with imperfect information and perhaps wrong expectations, but in any case moving forward into a future that is not predetermined, but where chance and hazard will play a terrific role."

Not only am I enjoying Wolf Hall, because of the plot, characters, and especially Mantel's writing, but also because I fundamentally believe in her approach to studying and writing about historical events and people. It is common, frequent, and easy to attribute emotions to historical figures and imagine what they would have felt in a given moment. And yet, Mantel steers from this introspective method to one of observation.

Mantel separates the study of the past from the assumptions of the present day. She reveals the Tudor world unencumbered by our omniscient knowledge of what will occur.

Despite the inevitability of Cromwell's death, however, [Mantel] said that "in every scene, even the quiet ones, I try to create turning points, multiple turning points. So the reader knows how it's going to turn out, but the reader's expectation of how and why is constantly challenged."

The discovery of truth in the study of a person, place, or time can only be done without the clouded visions and thoughts of today. To approach history without the veil of modern knowledge and judgement is difficult, but doing so honors the subject matter.

Studying History

An article in the New York Times today summarized a debate surrounding Britain’s history curriculum. Eminent historians, the likes of David Cannadine, David Starkey, Simon Schama, Eric Hobsbawm, Niall Ferguson, are weighing in on how history should be taught to young Britons.  

This article evoked for me a moment to pause and consider why I study history. What I appreciate most about the study of such a finicky thing is that it is constantly changing. How so, you may ask, since historical events that occurred in the past cannot be changed?  What we can change is how we examine the past and what perspective or interpretation is used for that examination.

To quote Mr. Cannadine:

“History is supposed to teach people perspective and proportion polarized around a set of entrenched positions: those who stress the importance of historical knowledge — facts — over historical skills, those who want a narrative of national greatness versus a warts-and-all portrait of the past, and those who want to focus on the country you’re in rather than our relationship with the broader world.”

The study of history needs to include the facts, the recitation of the kings and queens of England or the dates of wars, but it can, and in my opinion should, strive beyond the ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘when’, and ‘where’ to the ‘why’ and the ‘how’. It is in delving into the ‘whys’ and the ‘hows’ that moves the study of history beyond just the dates of a monarch or a war to considering the deeper meaning of the subject. It is in that quest for meaning that we diverge in how to study history because it means something different for each person.

Each time I sit down to examine a subject, it will be a different experience than the time before. I am approaching the topic in a different time and space and therefore I bring a different perspective to examining the topic in that moment. There is no true way to uncover the mystery of the past. There is no singular truth but many truths to discover. 

 

Who is Jeremy Bentham?

Towards the end of the fourth season of the television show Lost, the name Jeremy Bentham is banded about a bit. Already we know that the writers of the show have panache for English philosophers (e.g. John Locke). This modern reference of such a historical name begs the question to be asked: so who exactly was Jeremy Bentham?

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is the founder of Utilitarianism, an Enlightenment philosophy based on utility, which approves of an action in so far as an action has an overall tendency to promote the greatest amount of happiness. Bentham viewed rights and duties as legal concepts linked with the notions of command and approval. Social actions should aim at producing ‘the greatest good for the greatest number.’ Bentham campaigned for social and political reforms in all areas, most notably the criminal law and prison reform. He was a sever critique of the death penalty and argued in favor of individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the end of slavery, the abolition of physical punishment (including that of children), the right to divorce, free trade, usury, the decriminalization of homosexual acts.

To place Bentham in historical context, across Europe there was a profound movement of reformation, most radically occurring in France in the form of the French Revolution. Apart from theoretical considerations, Bentham condemned the belief in natural rights on the grounds that it inspired violence and bloodshed, the fundamental rights at the heart of the French Revolution. Bentham codified his philosophy of utility in The Principles of Morals and Legislation, published in 1789.

So do you see parallels between the founder of utilitarianism and the practice of utility on Lost?

Sources:
http://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm; http://www.britannia.com/history/; The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain, ed. Kenneth O. Morgan, Oxford University Press, 1997:436-7.