"A dance of “glorious and strange beauty” took place in a wintry garden in the south of England on January 6, 1614."
So specific!! And that's just the first line!
Is it just me, or are they just telling stories about the 16th century? Historians themselves will say history is an interpretative act. 'History' is for us in the present - it only lightly relates to what may or may not have occurred in the past, even if it presented as a fait accompli. I don't think it is possible to get this detail about what went on back then.
I see this sort of article as 'myth making'. Its not to do with reality - no sources are provided for us to check. Its just presented as a ready narrative, and we are meant to accept it.
So, what if that is the myth what are meant to take from it? I think we are meant 'edu-tained'. We can laugh at the fools back then who were literally blowing smoke up each others arses, in reclined splendour. We can enjoy a cannabis narrative - this talks to how we legalise it nowadays. These sorts of myths support the idea of how we are progressed, superior, etc.
Author here - was it really glorious and strange and beautiful? All subjective judgements, so who can truly say. But I can tell you that those judgements are at least drawn from an actual primary source, published in 1614: the stage directions for the performance itself. The link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske_of_Flowers/qC...
Incidentally, that source is linked in the article more than once, along with others.
Correct. There were two recorded performances, one in December, 1613, the second in January, 1614. I went ahead and described the second because it's better documented. I got the exact date from a journal article by a garden historian. [0] These are the kind of things that footnotes are helpful for - if I were writing this up as an academic paper, I'd get into the weeds with these details, but unfortunately it just doesn't work when you're writing it as a straight-ahead narrative without footnotes. That's especially true because it was basically just an introductory anecdote, not the focus of the piece.
I agree though, digging deep into historical sources, I think, should make us all uncomfortable. As you said, historians should never claim to have direct access to historical truth. It's all mediated and all potentially corrupted by the bias of observers/recorders. That's just a fact of doing history, and it's why we're not humanists, not scientists. It's also why I find it so endlessly interesting.
This is why I said that history is an interpretative act. I don't have an issue with the making the best of a past that is hard (impossible?) to discern. And that while our subject matter might be the past, we ourselves are in the present and express our understanding from our own biases and understandings - we talk ourselves into the past, in a way.
What I object to is the indisputable tone - this happened, these are the reasons, etc. It gives the reader the impression of knowledge, but this is an illusion, possibly a dangerous one. It conveys none of the reasoning, jumps and ambiguity that, I think, are the main part of these sorts of investigation.
Personally I would rather have the ambiguity, referring to source material, and try to develop a theory given the evidence - evidence-driven theories. I don't mind if there is no overarching narrative to explain it all. But it seems to me that professional historians feel empowered to present exactly that sort of a narrative, sometimes whether or not it is really supported by the evidence.
Totally agree. When reading history, you can and should substitute an invisible "According to the limited sources I consulted, and modulo their biases/mistakes/oversights, it seems to me the best interpretation of the given data that..." before every statement. Virtually no professional historian is going to claim to be 100% certain of any interpretation they make. It's often the case that more you dig into sources, the less certain you get. (Which is why almost every academic history paper's argument boils down to "this [person/event/era] turns out to be more complicated than we thought").
I also really like Fernand Braudel on events as a kind of epiphenomena of history, the misleading surface disturbances underneath the actual, barely-discernible patterns.
which seems a fair synopsis for me, of Hayden White's position in Metahistory. I thought this quote was interesting:
"In this climate, White (1966) believes that the duty of the researchers in present time is to transform the historical studies so as to liberate the present from the burden of history and to make the historical studies fit in the aims of the community. Seen in this light, history is not seen as a fixed ultimate entity that cannot be touched and that the historians have to accept it as it is. However, the historians should refuse to study the past as an end or ultimate being but contribute to offer some solutions for the problems of the present, which the professional historiography is unable to achieve."
I liked the general analysis that it seems White provides, but I don't like the moral relativism that is implied in the quote above. Why is it a historian's job to provide solutions for the present? What special values do they have? I don't like post-modern, moral relativism - where 'my truth' is the same as 'the truth'.
My position is that our knowledge of history is imperfect, that we cannot know the past. But a single past really did occur. Rather than express the evidence and express their reasoning for what that means, when historians apply narratives over the evidence they are covering an mystifying the past. This is to say I am receiving negative knowledge - I am receiving an informed but biased view that I will find it hard to unpick. And that is all history afaik! So little primary evidence, so many books and articles!
Perhaps similar to the OP, I'm accustomed to more explicit citations, so throughout the article it's really unclear to me what source applies to which quote. Is that standard practice in your domain?
I much prefer footnotes myself, where you can see directly what is being cited. Unfortunately there's a wide range of practices for online writing, but the norm I've found is usually just hyperlinks to digitized sources.
The Appendix, the online history journal I helped create back in the day, tried to experiment with a more detailed way of doing in-line citations, via small icons that you can click to see images, citations of primary source texts, even music or films on occasion. You can see it in action here:
So specific!! And that's just the first line!
Is it just me, or are they just telling stories about the 16th century? Historians themselves will say history is an interpretative act. 'History' is for us in the present - it only lightly relates to what may or may not have occurred in the past, even if it presented as a fait accompli. I don't think it is possible to get this detail about what went on back then.
I see this sort of article as 'myth making'. Its not to do with reality - no sources are provided for us to check. Its just presented as a ready narrative, and we are meant to accept it.
So, what if that is the myth what are meant to take from it? I think we are meant 'edu-tained'. We can laugh at the fools back then who were literally blowing smoke up each others arses, in reclined splendour. We can enjoy a cannabis narrative - this talks to how we legalise it nowadays. These sorts of myths support the idea of how we are progressed, superior, etc.