What's historiography?

[skiguy]

(if there's already a thread here defining it, I apologize)

Is historiography the study of some topic over the course of time?  Like would studying the historiography of the British Empire be analyzing how historians have interpretted it over time?

[Phidippides]

Here is what we had to say about it over at WoH a while back:

Me: Please give me a definition in your own words.  Thanks.
DB:Historiography is the study of historians and their contributions to the field of History.
DB:I just realized what you were doing Phid.  I should have offered an explanation when I created this forum.  I arrogantly assumed most would know what historiography meant.  My bad.
Me:Oh, no - the dictionary definition is easily found.  Sometimes the "insider" definitions are more revealing, though.
Scout:Historiography is the study of the way in which historians write history.  The do as opposed to the what.  the methods used and the way in which historical conclusions are reached.
Me:So, then, what is the real purpose of historiography?  I mean, what do you think is to be gained by studying how historians do history?
DB:Outside of academic circles and teaching historical method, not much.  I enjoy it because I like to trace the history of ideas.  It's about the same as why we still study Ptolemy in astronomy when we know his ideas were epic fail. 
Me:I suppose it also helps us to know how we arrived at present knowledge, or how we developed present-day methods to enhance accuracy in research.  I think if we are familiar with the successes and failures of past scholars, we can both be confident in certain accepted methods that are used and avoid repeating mistakes made in the past.
DB:I believe this is absolutely correct.  Research methods should always be studied, therefore, historiography is most relevant.
Me:How about this - how does historiography relate to hermeneutics?  Is historiography a subgroup of hermeneutics?  It seems that this would be the case since hermeneutics might also include the way non-historians approach the past.
DB:I might have to argue that hermeneutics goes beyond the scope of the historian's focus.  We are primarily interested in only the research of professional historians, and only consult non historians when absolutely necessary or where they are pertinently relevant to the subject at hand...i.e. they possess special expertise that cannot be found elsewhere.

Hermeneutics should be the tool of linguists, theologians, and literary critics; not historians.
Me:I don't think I agree with that at all (though I will grant that we may not be considering the word in the same manner).  For example, studying the history of the Renaissance may very well entail looking into the Renaissance interpretation of ancient Roman sources.  It's clear that Renaissance thinkers went in wrong directions in interpreting Vitruvius, for example, because we have examples from Pompeii that better illustrate what Vitruvius meant.  Early 18th century England, 19th century Germany, etc. also looked to the Renaissance, to Rome, or to Greece and interpreted perceived ideals in ways that helped shape contemporary societies.

In other words, we are not the ones doing the interpreting; rather, we are looking at historical interpretations made by past civilizations.

In this sense, it seems to be a means of doing primary research rather than historiography, so I can see how they are unrelated in that regard. 
DB:So long as historians aren't doing the interpreting, then I have no problem with your usage.

[skiguy]

I need a deeper understanding of what historiography is, but I think I'm going in the right direction.

In other words, we are not the ones doing the interpreting; rather, we are looking at historical interpretations made by past civilizations.

I assume you also mean how a 19th century historian compares to an 18th century historian discussing the same topic. Using the study of the British Empire as an example:  a 19th century writer is still in the midst of the height of the British Empire were a contempory historian sees it as a whole with a beginning and an end.  Apart from new dicoveries,  does this mean they view or should view 16th or 17th century British history differently? 

Is historiography were revisionism comes from?  It seems so or at least could be.

[Phidippides]

In that quote of mine above, I was referring to hermeneutics, rather than historiography, so it's a bit different.

As for historiography alone, it's not (necessarily) about revisionism, but rather just a study of how history was researched in the past.  I suppose you could have a guy who covers the historiography of Britain since the sixteenth century, and he might note that there were certain biases on the part of British historians in the nineteenth century.  This would probably be true, but there could be a political agenda behind pointing this out.  Once the old narrative is broken down, a new, possibly revisionist narrative may be raised.

[scout1067]

Every time I think of Historiography I picture some dusty guy in an equally dusty library comparing two texts by different authors and complaining about the writing style and thought processes of one while liking the other.

[DonaldBaker]

Every time I think of Historiography I picture some dusty guy in an equally dusty library comparing two texts by different authors and complaining about the writing style and thought processes of one while liking the other.

This about sums it all up.

[Phidippides]

I have a question.  If you say that your area is the historiography of early nineteenth century America, does that mean that a) you study historians from nineteenth century America, or b) you study historians who study nineteenth century America?

[scout1067]

The answer is B.  Historiography has as much relation to doing history as sportswriting does to actually playing a sport.

[Phidippides]

Alright, then what would studying choice A be called?  Would it simply be "the study of historians from nineteenth century America" (i.e. historians who study a large range of historical areas, from ancient Greece to the French Revolution)?  Choice B, then, would the be study of historiography - that is, historians, mostly probably from the twentieth century, who study a specific set of years (e.g. 1800-1825) in American history.

Incidentally, I was trying to wrap my head around the sportswriting analogy and I was having a difficult time, until I realized why.  Whereas historians writing about history are actually participating in history and can rightly become the subject of historical writing in the future, sportswriters aren't actually competing in sports.  Writing about sports is not a sport in itself, but writing about history can be a historically-noteworthy activity.

[skiguy]

Maybe a better analogy would be a coxswain on an 8 man rowing crew?  He doesn't row, but he still gets a medal if they win. 

[DonaldBaker]

I have a question.  If you say that your area is the historiography of early nineteenth century America, does that mean that a) you study historians from nineteenth century America, or b) you study historians who study nineteenth century America?

B

[scout1067]

Phid,  how is writing about about other people writing history historically worthy in its own right?

Historiography is not historians writing about history, it is historians writing about the ways other historians wrote history.  It is just about as pure a method of navel gazing as considering the sound of one-hand clapping, which Bart Simpson showed us long ago, it is also helpfully demonstrated below. (if i managed to embed the video code properly)

I maintain that the sportswriter analogy is apt.  How many history books have you read lately where the author spends the entire book discussing another historians writing style and historical interpretation methods?  I can tell you how many I have read, eight, and all when I took my mandatory historiography class for my MA Program.

[DonaldBaker]

I enjoy it more than regular history myself.

[Phidippides]

Phid,  how is writing about about other people writing history historically worthy in its own right?

Historiography is not historians writing about history, it is historians writing about the ways other historians wrote history.  It is just about as pure a method of navel gazing as considering the sound of one-hand clapping, which Bart Simpson showed us long ago, it is also helpfully demonstrated below. (if i managed to embed the video code properly)

Oh, I think it can be very historical worthy, but probably moreso for scholars as they advance in their fields.  It seems pretty important to me that the way of thinking of scholars be highlighted in order to know why a particular course of study is taken.  Example - have you ever read the work of Percy Ernst Shramm or Ernst Hartwig Kantorowicz on the Middle Ages?  In Inventing the Middle Ages, Norman Cantor places those two authors within the political climate of Germany in the first half of the twentieth century, including their belief in Hitler as a similar figure to Otto III or Frederick II, in their minds.  That's the kind of stuff I would want to know.  Is a historian writing while dangling a finger in modern political activism?  Or is he writing having been taught to research in a particular way?  Bias, political leaning, or school of thought are important when we consider historical scholarship, IMO.

Again, historians are participating in history by writing about history, so they are an appropriate subject of study.  If it's a work in "navel gazing" and therefore something that should not be done, what would we be left with?  We'd be left with a bunch of historical writing that we are unable to weigh properly.  The study of history, therefore, would be that much less productive.   

[scout1067]

Again, historians are participating in history by writing about history, so they are an appropriate subject of study.

I obviously disagree completely.  See my sportswriting analogy. 

Historians who study other historians may be influenced by those they study but the essential question to me is do they in turn effectively influence historical actors?  I am willing to concede that some historians are influential in shaping events by the affect their own historical writings have on historical actors.  However, I don't think too many presidents, generals, or legislators pick up books of historiography and are then influenced in their actions by those same books.  Historiography affects the craft of history but not the flow of history itself.  It is essentially navel gazing because it is historians looking at other historians.  It shapes the way some of us see past historical writing but not the events themselves.  I have argued consistently that we, as historians, can only DO history by looking at what historical figures did, not what other historians wrote about them.  To shape a somewhat cruder analogy, Historiography is to history what masturbation is to sex, both have some relation to the other but are at the same time completely different. 

Historiography is not history, nor can it ever be so because by its very nature the topic is inward looking.

The only way I can see a historian becoming historically significant is through his own histories being influential upon influential people.  The example I would pick is Hans Delbrueck and the effect his historical writing had on the way war was perceived by the pre-WWI German General Staff.  He argued that war had practical utility and snce that view fit into the view of the General staff his books were used in support of General Staff aims when arguing for how effective their war plans could be.  I cannot think of a single historiogaphical work or author who has been influential outside the circle of academic historians.  I am not saying they could not be, although I think the idea is far-fetched, I am saying they have not been.  Influential in academia is not even close to the same thing as influential in the real world where most people live.