thoughts on history

I've been thinking a lot lately about whether or not it is possible to get the "definitive version" of history. Well, scratch that. Let's try again. I know the definitive version of history exists, but I've been wondering how rare it is for it to actually make itself known these days.

I have been inhaling Belloc lately, among several others. The man had an uncanny ability to elucidate historical truth. His style is straightforward, and he doesn't bother with the countless useless anecdotes which so often comprise the bulk of modern histories. Reading his work and taking what he presents as fact as such (easily verifiable), one can't help but conclude that he indeed writes the definitive version of the history he presents.

What then of the revisionist? Belloc himself, during the time in which he wrote, was a revisionist, challenging and upsetting the status quo. There is and always will be a genuine desire to seek out historical truth, and though of late this desire is spread thin among a haggard few, it is these few who we may rightfully and respectfully refer to as revisionists. Nevertheless, the zeitgeist seems to dictate that a work need not be really considered historical unless it is more analysis and exegesis than pure fact. Our collective consciousness, so embedded in the framework of a modern liberal arts mindset, demands nothing less.

The question then becomes whether or not the historian himself is qualified to offer a meaningful interpretation of events past as relevant to the present. My own personal belief is that, more often than not, he is not. After all, who is the modern historian? No longer is he the erudite scholar, poring over ancient manuscripts for days by candlelight alone, devoting a lifetime to both preservation and discovery. Nay, the modern historian is first and foremost an author. He is therefore obligated to approach a tried and true subject matter with novel and quirky approaches, in hopes of coming up with something comprehensive enough to print and market. Truly then, nothing is sacred to the modern historian, who thrives on controversy and contention, the two green lights of a sales campaign.

So although the definitive version of history is in fact an actuality, I say it is more likely to be found long published and long forgotten on the library shelf collecting dust, rather than "coming to a bookstand near you." Belloc, Dawson, Pirenne, Haskins, Tocqueville... the list is unending. Yes, the reading cycle has brought me back to history, and I feel I have to share the love with the rest of you.

P.S. Richard, it looks like reform is in your favor.