What is History? with a new Introduction by Richard J Evans by E.H. Carr

by Edward Hallett Carr

'Not only our most distinguished historian but also one of the most valuable contributors to historical theory' SpectatorIn answering the question, 'what is history?', E. H. Carr's acclaimed and influential bestseller shows that the facts of history are simply those which the historian selects for scrutiny. His fluent and hugely wide-ranging account of the nature of history and the role of the historian argues that all history is to some degree subjective, written by individuals who are above all people of their own time. 'Lively and controversial, full of wit and humour, E. H. Carr's What Is History? played a central role in the historiographical revolution in the 1960s' Richard J. EvansWith an introduction by Richard J. Evans, author of the Third Reich trilogy.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Academic, Politics, Classics, World History

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1961

About the author

Edward Hallett Carr was a liberal realist and later left-wing British historian, journalist and international relations theorist, and an opponent of empiricism within historiography.

Carr was best known for his 14-volume history of the Soviet Union, in which he provided an account of Soviet history from 1917 to 1929, for his writings on international relations, and for his book What Is History?, in which he laid out historiographical principles rejecting traditional historical methods and practices.

Educated at Cambridge, Carr began his career as a diplomat in 1916. Becoming increasingly preoccupied with the study of international relations and of the Soviet Union, he resigned from the Foreign Office in 1936 to begin an academic career. From 1941 to 1946, Carr worked as an assistant editor at The Times, where he was noted for his leaders (editorials) urging a socialist system and an Anglo-Soviet alliance as the basis of a post-war order. Afterwards, Carr worked on a massive 14-volume work on Soviet history entitled A History of Soviet Russia, a project that he was still engaged in at the time of his death in 1982. In 1961, he delivered the G. M. Trevelyan lectures at the University of Cambridge that became the basis of his book, What is History?. Moving increasingly towards the left throughout his career, Carr saw his role as the theorist who would work out the basis of a new international order.

Reviews

[Callum's Column · Rating 4 out of 5]

"What is History?" is a seminal text of historiography. Carr was educated in positivist tradition of Rankean history. However, with modernism being critiqued in the shadow of global cataclysm, Carr argued that a historian's selection of facts was not objective; rather, it is a selective interpretation that is shaped by their own perceptions and social context. Historical facts are selected and then given meaning by the historian. The relationship between the historian and the historical fact is reciprocal, with the questions posed to the past shaped by the present. Thus, history is a process, with each generation of historians examining the past in their own way.

Carr contends that pure objectivity in history is not possible, acknowledging that subjective biases inherently slant their interpretations. Post-structuralist historians have taken this a step further and stipulated that historical facts are merely "texts" that are pluralistic, contingent, and influenced by various discourses. Some have further contended that history is ultimately a relative narrative and that one can not truly know the past. Such arguments quickly fall short when you ask whether the Holocaust was merely relative. Carr proposed a reasonable middle ground between Rankean empiricists and post-structuralists by using the metaphor of a mountain. One may view the mountain from different angles, but it is still a mountain.

So, what is a historical fact, and what is history? Carr uses another metaphor, stating that historical facts are like fish on a fish mongers slab, ready to be prepared and consumed in the manner best deemed by the purchaser. However, this fish can be repeatedly consumed and prepared multiple different ways. A new recipe may come along that gives the fish a different flavour. Thus, according to Carr, history is "a continuous dialogue between the past and present and a continual interaction between the historian and the facts, for a correct interpretation and accurate recording of facts." History is not static; history shapes the present and the future.

[Janet · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a masterful study of the questions historians ask themselves--and readers of history should ask themselves--about the nature of the writing of history. Is history a bunch of objective facts just put down by a disinterested bean-counter called an historian? Or is it a study of the past with the goal of shedding light on the present? Is it a 'tale of the victors', as the losers in history are usually obliterated? Is it cause and effect? Is there a Spirit of History, a World Spirit a la Hegel? Carr was an eminent Russian historian and it is fascinating to get a look into the making of history, how the vision has changed from century to century… how the scarcity of facts makes the writing of history both easier and harder, the specific problems of 'contemporary history.'

The issue I find especially important is the lens through which an historian assembles his or her facts for analysis--that people need to understand that it's not "I read this" ergo it's true. We need to identify the lens, and perhaps balance it with the lens of the opposite point of view, and maybe triangulate with histories by writers more or less colorful and opinionated--though opinion, or point of view, IS the engine which sends the historian on his or her journey in the first place.

It's much like biblical scholarship--to understand the hands which have created a specific text, and each historian has his or her own world view and raison d'être in creating it. Which bone are they picking? Which school of historiography (the study of the writing of history) do they consciously or unconsciously take as their own?

Carr, like many historians, is an absolutely fantastic writer--some of the turns of phrase, the little asides, sometimes gentlemanly digs at colleagues, are laugh out loud funny, as well as very thoughtful.I would have liked more philosophy myself… but this small book had been originally a short series of lectures, which is one of its virtues.

[Sense of History]

This book contains 6 lectures E.H. Carr (1892-1982) gave, back in 1961 at the University of Cambridge. So, you surely can say it is a bit outdated. But nevertheless, I was very pleased about the value of Carr's opinions. These focus on the methodology of the historic profession, as well as the philosophical foundations of it.

Carr was a practicing diplomat, but he also published extensively on Russian and Soviet history. So he combined a profound interest in the theory of historical studies with his own experience in the field of international reality and of his own research. Carr is always subtle and very precise about the essence and the limits of historic writing. I have some issues with his view on accidents in history and his formulation of what objectivity can be: it seems to me he is a bit too relativistic. But for his eloquent way of formulating his other opinions, I can only have admiration. Just one cautionary remark: don't read the very large introduction to this particular edition, it adds almost nothing.

[Kuszma · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Az a vizsgázó, aki arra a kérdésre, »Miért tört ki az 1917-es orosz forradalom?«, egyetlen okban véli megtalálni a választ, hármasnál jobbat nemigen érdemel."

Carr professzor felteszi magának a blikkfangos kérdést, hogy "Mi a történelem?", és meg is válaszolja. Közben olyas témákat jár körül, mint:
a.) mi is az a "történelmi tény"?
b.) hogyan viszonyul egymáshoz egyén és társadalom?
c.) hogyan viszonyul a történelemtudomány a tudományokhoz általában?
d.) mennyire fűzhető fel a történelemtudomány az okok és okozatiságok rabláncára?
stb.
És miközben ezzel így elgyönyörködteti olvasóját, gondoskodik arról is, hogy mondandóját időnként egymondatos aforizmákká szublimálja - ide a bökőt, hogy az oxfordi történelemtudományi tanszék szuvenírboltjában csupa olyan pólót kapni, amire ezek az aranyköpések vannak nyomtatva*. Emellett pedig remekül ért ahhoz, hogy a kollégák (főképp Karl Popper és Isaiah Berlin) általánosító rendszereinek egy-egy csattanós sziporkával odacsördítsen a térdhajlatába. Szóval öröm és élvezet olvasni, az ember nem talál rajta fogást. Mondjuk lehet, azért nem talál rajta fogást, mert Carr olyan rendszert épít, ami egyenlő távolságot kíván tartani a többi rendszertől - ilyen értelemben pedig bizonyos értelemben nem annyira eredeti konstrukció, mint más konstrukciók eredője, kísérlet arra, hogy a történész mértéktartón az önálló rendszerek közé pozicionálja magát. Azt mondja, a történész nem lehet tökéletesen objektív, de ne legyen szubjektív se. Hogy ne higgyen a szükségszerűségben, de ne vesse el teljesen az ok-okozatiságot se. Hogy az egyén nem a társadalom ellentéte, de nem is azonos a társadalommal. Szóval valami kozmikus konszenzusra törekszik. Ez pedig sajátos módon teszi egyszerre támadhatatlanná és továbbgondolhatatlanná. De ez legyen azoknak a baja, akik vitatkozni akarnak vele. Én csak bólogatok.

* Pl. "Ennélfogva a »Mi a történelem?« kérdésre az első válaszom az volna, hogy szakadatlan kölcsönhatás a történész és a tények, soha véget nem érő párbeszéd a múlt és a jelen között." Vagy: "Képessé tenni az embert arra, hogy megértse a múlt társadalmát, és segíteni neki abban, hogy kezelni tudja a jelen társadalmát - ez a történetírás kettős funkciója."

[Parham]

چند نکته ای که به نظرم مهمتر و بنیادی تر از باقی نوشته ها آمدند را مینویسم

مورخ و جامعه
دیدگاه سنتی آکادمیسین های تاریخ اینست که مورخ میتواند بیرون از زمان و مکان خویش که وی را تاثیرپذیر از مقتضیات و شرایط اجتماعی زندگی اش میسازد، به تاریخ نگاری بپردازد؛ و این برای ئی.اچ.کار مقبول نیست. بدین خاطر، ((کار)) تحقیق دربارۀ موقعیتی که مورخ در آن میزیسته را ضروری میپندارد

علت عقلانی، علت تصادفی
کار ابتدا سخنی از هگل را نقل میکند : ((هرآنچه واقعیست عقلانیست و هر آنچه عقلانیست واقعیست)) ؛ به باور کار، وقایع تاریخی میتوانند دو گونه علت داشته باشند: عقلانی و تصادفی . معمولا علل عقلانی مجزا از پدیده های طبیعی هستند و یکسره با ساختارهای جامعه و روابط درونی آنها سروکار دارند ، ساختارهایی که همواره فراتر از افراد معین است و نقش های هر نهاد نسل به نسل توسط افراد مختلف در آن پر میشود . ناخشنودی دهقانان در روسیۀ تزاری همواره علتی عقلانی برای پیدایش بلشویک ها محسوب میشود ، زیرا که مفاهیمی نظیر طبقه اجتماعی ، رفاه و مالیات و غیره در سیاستهای کشورها امری حذف نشدنی ، تفکیک ناپذیر و ابدی است . از طرفی دیگر، علل تصادفی با اینکه به عقیدۀ کار میتوانند به اندازه علل عقلانی در رخدادها موثر باشند ، نباید برای مورخ حائز اهمیت باشند زیرا پیش بینی آنها اغلب ناممکن است و از آن رو که بیشتر به امور خاص و افراد برمیگردد تا امور عام و الگوهای تکرارشدنی ، راهنمای مورخ برای درک آینده و عبرت اموزی از تاریخ نیست . بیماریِ تروتسکی در واپسین ماه های قبل از رسمی شدن شوروی ، هرچند به خودی خود قاعده مند و پیرو یک رابطه علت و معلولیست ( وی در فصل شکار به شکار اردک رفت و بر اثر یک زخم، عفونت در بدنش رسوخ کرد ) ، به اندازه ی خفقان مطبوعاتِ روسی و عقب ماندگی صنعتی آن کشور نمیتواند مورد بررسی قرار بگیرد زیرا
چشم اندازی به آینده را ترسیم نمیکند . در ادامه ی مبحث تاریخ و آینده میخوانیم
:
تاریخ ،تعامل بین گذشته و حال
نگاه مورخان به انقلاب فرانسه در قرن نوزدهم، تفاوتهای انکارناپذیری با تاریخ نگاری های آن پس از انقلاب روسیه در قرن بیستم دارد. همانطور که مورخ نمیتواند خارج از ظرف زمان و مکان زندگی اش تاریخ را بنویسد، کتابهای تاریخی هم از طریق رابطه ی خود با زمانی که در آن نوشته میشوند قابل بررسی اند. در انتهای درسگفتاری که مربوط به این مقوله است، کار اندکی ایده ی خود را بازنویسی میکند و میگوید از آنجا که زمانِ حال به نوعی زمان موهوم و جاری بین سه زمان میباشد، بهتر است که تاریخ را تعاملی بین گذشته و آینده بدانیم . جایی میگوید: ((مورخان گذشته را میبینند و آینده را تصور میکنند)) . در واقع، ترسیمی شاید دقیق و شاید ناقص از آینده و امید به درک آینده است که به تاریخ نگاری اهمیت میبخشد ؛ ولتر با طنزپردازی های خاصش در اینباره میگوید ( نقل به مضمون ) " اگر بخواهید فقط بگویید که فلان سال فلان شاه با بهمان شاه جنگید و در بهمان سال شکستش داد ، برای چه چیزهایتان را بخوانیم" ؟

[Seán · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought a 50¢ copy of this book years ago on a bargain bin spree at either Housing Works or the Strand. Until recently, every time I paged through it I couldn't help but deride its maddeningly simple-minded premise: in a series of lectures at Cambridge in the 1950s, Carr set out to actually answer the question what is history.

Is history a science? Are there "causes" for historical events? What is fact? And, yes, this is as boring as one might expect. You advance through a few pages of this kind of freshman exegesis and you start asking "Are you serious?" over and over.

Yet, and of course, Carr wins you over, oh word booty. He builds on these simple questions and lays out a truly compelling progressive theory of history. He lets you in on conversations he's been having with himself about his profession, the thing that clearly animates his entire life, and it's an honest and rare little inspiration.

Plus, he gently mocks conservatives now and then. Here's a wonderful bit about the hidden cost of conservatism that made me mentally pump my fist:

In ordinary life we are more often involved than we sometimes care to admit in the necessity of preferring the lesser evil, or of doing evil that good may come. In history the question is sometimes discussed under the rubric 'the cost of progress' or 'the price of revolution.' This is misleading. As Bacon says in the essay On Innovations, 'the forward retention of custom is as turbulent a thing as an innovation.' The cost of conservation falls just as heavily on the under-privileged as the cost of innovation on those who are deprived of their privileges. The thesis that the good of some justifies the sufferings of others is implicit in all government, and is just as much a conservative as a radical doctrine.

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Exploring the study of history
31 December 2011

This book is not actually a book on history per se but rather an exploration of the discipline of history. This is the main reason that I consider it philosophy as it is not looking at a specific historical event, or looking at the history of civilisation but rather taking a step back and exploring what it is that historians do. This is something that many of us generally take foregranted when we look and an historical event. Many of us will discuss the reasons behind the event and the results of what happened from the event, but we generally do not look at what goes into our thought patterns when we discuss these things. This, though, I believe is important because by understanding the background to the discipline helps us interpret the events and come to better conclusions as to the events that we are looking at.

There are a few things that I wish to outline with regards to Carr's philosophy (this book is actually a series of lectures that Carr delivered, and then published in book form). First of all we need to consider the context of the event. Carr indicates that history does not occur in a vacuum. Once again, we generally know and accept this, but do not really think too deeply about what it means. Carr does discuss causation, and this is an important aspect of history, but before we come to causation, we must understand the concept of a fact in history.

We generally understand that history is made up of facts. It was a fact that Rome dominated the Mediterranean region during the late classical period, just as it is a fact that Hitler invaded Poland. These are things that we generally do not dispute, but the question that is raised is how we come about those facts. In the case of Hitler there are a lot of sources that we can turn to to confirm this fact and also assist us in making sure that the event of him invading Poland is a clear as possible. In a recent event this is easy, however when we are looking back at events that occurred in Ancient Rome, then our sources are much more limited. For instance, there are only two sources that deal with Hannibul's invasion of the Italian Peninsula, and both of these sources were written by Romans at least a hundred years after the events. As such the telling of this tale is clouded by the opinions of the writers and the societies in which these writers were writing. Then we have sources such as Plutarch, who wrote even later, and wrote from a number of sources. However, Plutarch's telling of the story is going to be coloured by the sources that he chose, and the selections that he took from his sources. Plutarch has a purpose in writing his history, and his use of sources are going to be coloured by his own thoughts and opinions.

As can be seen, the sources that we rely on to obtain facts will be coloured by the writer and the society in which that writer was writing. However there is be a further twist to this in that our interpretation of these sources are going to be further coloured not only by the society in which we live, but also since many of the sources, at least for the ancient world, are not written in our language, we must also go through the process of either interpreting the documents ourselves, or relying upon somebody else's translation. This is probably why Carr indicated that any historian that is worth their salt should be able to read and understand at least one other language (mine are Ancient Greek and German).

As mentioned our context is going to colour the way we interpret history, particularly when it comes to the concept of cause and effect. In the Early Modern Era, historical movements and changes were seen as the actions of single men. Therefore an event would occur because a single person chose a course of action and pursued it. Take for instance Hannibul's invasion of Italy. Earlier Carthage and Rome had gone to war over possession of the island of Sicily, and Carthage had lost the war. As a result, Carthage was forced to hand over colonies and pay tribute to Rome. This had left a bitter taste in the mouths of the Carthaginians, and it was going to happen, sooner or later, that one person was going to want revenge, and that person turned out to be Hannibul.

However, as society changed, we came to understand the causes of events differently, particularly as the French Revolution rocked the continent. There was no specific person that could be seen as starting the French Revolution, but rather it was a general social movement that precipitated the event, and these ideas had filtered into the French Nation due to their participation in the American War of Independence. This explanation can also be used with regards to Hannibal. First of all, causes in themselves have causes, and these causes also have causes. As indicated above, it was the Cartheginian defeat in the first Punic War that resulted in Hannibul arising, however, the social movement theory suggests that if it was not Hannibul, it would have been somebody else. Further, it was a social event that brought about the first Punic War: two empires that were growing were bound to come into conflict with each other, and the defeat in the war did not just effect one person, but a whole range of people. In a strange way, history repeated itself in the first half of the 20th century.

However, come the late 19th Century, the concept of causes changed again and now many of us look at economic causes as being the reason behind many historical events. With the French revolution is was the fact that the French Government was bankrupt and attempted to increase an already crippling tax rate upon the commoners that was the spark that resulted in the French Revolution. In the same way the first Punic War could be considered a trade war as Rome and Carthage came to blows over trade routes and colonies, in particular Sicily (which was the staging ground for much of the first war). However, this is not purely economic as also strategic for whoever gained control of Sicily would have the upper hand, which suggests that it arose out of a clash of Empires.

I don't necessarily agree entirely with Carr's exposition of history, but that is because we tend to approach history from different angles. I tend to had a teleological view of history, meaning that history moves from a beginning to an end and history is relentlessly moving towards that end, even though we may only have a vague understanding of what that end will be and when it will occur. This has come out of my Christian upbringing. Also there is the debate over divine intervention. Carr does not accept this, however I do, though will admit that it is subtle at best. This comes out in the doctrine of accident in history. Some suggest that there is no such thing as an accident, but I say rubbish. It was an accident that enabled the Americans to defeat the Japanese at the battle of Midway (where it was Hitler's insanity that resulted in him invading Russia). The further back in history we go, the more distinct the causes, the turning points, and indeed the accidents, become. Take for instance the defeat of Senaccerib at the gates of Jerusalem. The Bible (one of our sources) says that at night the Angel of Death came down and slaughtered the Assyrian army. Modern historians suggest that it was a disease. Either way, my position is that this single, accidental (or divine) event pretty much changed the course of history.

I mentioned above that if Hannibul didn't rise up, somebody else would have. While that may be true, it was Hannibul, with all of his strengths and his weaknesses, that rose up. It was Hannibul that came up with the plan to march over the Alps, and the tactics he used to defeat the Romans at Cannae. Even though the Romans were defeated, it was Hannibul that hesitated for too long when deciding his next move that resulted in Scipio Africanus being able to launch a counter attack against Carthage. Further, it was Hitler who decided to attack Russia instead of Turkey, and it was also Hitler who decided to change course and move away from Moscow and instead attack Stalingrad. It was these characters, with their specific decisions and flaws that resulted in the history as we know it, and it is my position that it was God who raised these people up (or arranging other accidents) to set the course of history as it happens.

Obviously this then raises the question of free will verses determination. Do we have free will, or are we just prisoners of a relentless history that moves forward. While I may have argued on determinism above, we have to remember that it was the choices that people made, and their desire to see through to the end their plans, that turned history the way it went. While God may have raised up Hannibul to attack Rome, it was Hannibul's choice to do something about the defeat his people had suffered, just as it was Hannibul's choice not to march on Rome after defeating the Romans at Cannae. In the same vein, it was Hitler's choice to invade Soviet Russia instead on Turkey (the reason I use that is that if he had invaded Turkey, he could have then moved into the Fertile Crescent and captured the oil fields of the Middle East rather than wasting his resources in a fruitless campaign against Russia). In the same sense (though this is controversial in and of itself) it was Franklin Delanore Roosevelt's decision not to act against the Japanese Fleet that turned the war in the Allies' favour, just as it was the Japanese's leadership's decision to attempt to take out the American Pacific Fleet to attempt to prevent them from entering the war.

This is a short book, and while I would suggest that we don't need to agree with everything Carr writes in his book, I believe this is a good book for the serious student of history. Carr assists us in understanding the discipline and also the controversies that arise in the way we interpret it: do we look at single people, accidents, social movements, or economic forces. Carr suggests, and I agree, that we must look at all of these factors, as all of these factors, particularly when we are looking at modern events (such as World War II, which ironically Carr does not even mention) in trying to understand the context, the reasons behind, and the effects, of these events.

[Zach Carter · Rating 4 out of 5]

As we bear witness to genocide, one of the things on my mind has been how it will be recorded in history. The lies about October 7 and the willful ignorance and denial of the conditions of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and occupation have all moved very quickly. How, then, might we relate this historical moment? I think E H Carr has given us a great deal to consider. For, as he tells us: "It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context."

One need only look at the accepted revisionism of the Soviet Union, or the Holodomor hoax, or the Haitian Revolution, to see how accepted judgment can trump facts. And if, as Carr proposes, "The historian belongs not to the past but to the present" - as the present is so deeply affected by the past - then we should take extra care to dismiss and debunk falsified and revised history as it is happening in the present. Anything less would be a disservice to the past.

[Julio Pino · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everyone who went to graduate school in the United States had to read this book. Part philosophical musing, part how-to manual, WHAT IS HISTORY? shaped the thinking of a least two generations of historians. Carr can be frustrating to read due to his lack of passion and equivocal stance on almost anything having to do with being a historian. If you have read his multi-volume history on the origins of the Soviet Union, e.g. FOUNDATIONS OF A PLANNED ECONOMY, you know what I mean. He is Marxist except when he isn't. Political struggles take a back seat to statistics and memorandums from Moscow. I hope Carr is still taught at university, only more critically.

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

Objective Reality

Let me begin by stating my personal objectivist viewpoint: There is only one single objective reality. Either some event in the past happened, or it did not. Someone’s opinion does not change that fact. For example, on January 10, 49 BC Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River with some of his soldiers. Or he did not. There is only one correct answer.

The Hard Truth about Historical Facts

So is the job of the historian is simply to collect up all the objective facts, and an accurate account of what actually happened will automatically follow? Carr points out a few problems with this Positivist view.

First, we cannot directly observe anything that happened in the past. We rely on the accounts of other people, who may in turn be relying on accounts of yet others. The Rubicon story may have come from some propagandist putting a spin on Caesar’s overthrow of the Roman Republic. The historian must assess the accuracy of each so-called fact. That requires judgment. And there are too many historical facts. For example, millions of people have crossed the Rubicon. Exactly what makes Julius Caesar’s crossing worth mentioning.

Carr tells us, "The main work of the historian is not to record, but to evaluate; for, if he does not evaluate, how can he know what is worth recording?" One can only evaluate on the basis of one’s own experience, which occurs during the historian’s lifetime. Thus the historian is the product of history before he begins to write it. History consists essentially in seeing the past through the eyes of the present. There simply cannot be a complete separation between subject and object, between the historian and his perception of the past.

All this sounds dangerously like subjectivism, but it is only an objective acknowledgment of the difficulties in reconstructing what actually occurred in history. In his words,

“The historian and the facts of history are necessary to one another. The historian without his facts is rootless and futile; the facts without their historian are dead and meaningless. My first answer therefore to the question ‘What is history?’ is that it is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.”

First Study Your Historian

"When we take up a work of history, our first concern should be not with the facts that it contains but with the historian who wrote it. Before you study the historian, study his historical and social environment.”

This is the take-home message of the book. Carr gives many examples of how historians interpret the same period of history differently, and how those interpretations are influenced by the experience of their own time. He gives examples of the same historian writing different historical accounts depending on the social changes occurring over his lifetime. He goes so far as to say that one can interpret the social context of the historian by the way he writes his history of the Roman Empire. Caesar’s triumph may seem glorious to one benefiting from stable autocratic rule, and less glorious to one experiencing the oppression of a ruthless tyrant. The historical account is written accordingly.

The Lessons of History

Why do we study history in the first place? It is more than just raw material for literature. We are looking for a guide to understand the present, and seek insight into the future. Carr dismisses those who claim there can be no lessons from history. Yes, there are contingent events and strong personalities. But there are also underlying forces that are still operating today. He personally participated in the 1919 Paris Conference and says everyone in the delegation believed that we could learn from the lessons of the Vienna Congress, the last great European peace congress a hundred years earlier.

But he cautions that the lessons of history should not be taken too literally. He tells us. "The Bolsheviks knew that the French revolution had ended in a Napoleon, and feared that their own revolution might end in the same way. They therefore mistrusted Trotsky, who among their leaders looked most like a Napoleon, and trusted Stalin, who looked least like a Napoleon." The new lesson of history here is that there are worse things than a Napoleon.

History as a Science

Carr claims history is a science, and I have to agree that at least it should be. He points out that history and the physical sciences are not as different as they appear to be. Physics is not simply a collection of facts, as the theories to explain those facts are what bring it to life. The mathematics may be exact, but the interpretation to make it verbally comprehensible is a subjective exercise similar to that of the historian.

And science itself is becoming more historical. Newton’s cosmology was about discovering the eternal laws that govern the universe. But geology and evolutionary theory are about discovering the events of the past to explain where we come from. Astronomy has moved from observing the fixed heavens to discovering how the universe came to be what it is.

It is worth remembering that evolutionary theory was interpreted as “survival of the fittest”, which corresponded to the emerging capitalist economy of the time. Modern interpretations pay more attention to cooperation and symbiosis. None of this takes away from the value of science. We just have to be even more careful of subjective interpretations when evaluating history.

Evaluating This Historian

For someone who describes the problems of history so well, it is interesting that his specialty is the Soviet Union, which was more a study of current events. As for his insight, this is a guy who was sympathetic to both Hitler and Stalin in the 1930’s. The last chapter shows his views have not changed much, as he defends the collectivisation of the peasants as a part of the cost of industrialisation.

But perhaps his sympathy for Soviet Russia gives him a better understanding of what happened there and why, and makes for a better history. We just have to remember to take the context of the historian into account when we try to decode what he writes. For that, we can thank him for his excellent advice.

[zed · Rating 2 out of 5]

I kinda of liked it. It is a bit repetitive at times, and I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with Carr though that should not matter.

[Ricardo Ribeiro · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am now 47 years, and I read this one when I was 20. It was in my first university (or college, if you are American) and its reading marked me deeply. It came with the emotion of the first really serious studying book. And it made me think a lot about the degree I was about to initiate. In a word, one of the books of my life.

[Jackie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Excerpt from my essay:

Carr quickly discredits the notion of history as a universal entity, lambasting Acton’s proposal of an “ultimate history” by indicating that such a concept imposes a complete separation between subject and object. The 19th century positivist claim that history is a pure science is a false conviction based not on reality but rather, as Carr calls it, a “cult of facts.” Factuality comprises merely one aspect of the historian’s task. To have meaning, facts must be properly analyzed and assembled by an individual, thereby adding an element of subjectivity to any historical finding. Data may be lost or incomplete; one historian’s rationale may differ from another’s; the causes of any particular event may not have been inevitable. In order to be scientific, history would necessarily need to possess postulates which apply universally and can be re-applied with the same results. Since no historical trend can be re-applied to produce exact results, we cannot ignore that there are other complicit factors in its make-up.

[Asim Bakhshi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Haven't read anything more interesting on the topic since Isaiah Berlin's celebrated essay Hedgehog and the Fox. The idea that pure historical objectivity is impossible can not be rebutted easily and has been misunderstood a lot. Carr believes that a historian is, after all, a product of history himself before being a historian.

[withdrawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I first read What is History as part of a philosophy of history class. I believe that the course was given by Aristotle and the book was written on papyrus. I recall being less critical of it at that time in any case. I would still suggest it as a good introduction to issues in historiography. I would, however, suggest caution in taking Carr at face value. He has numerous axes to grind and theories to support.

My major criticism is that he seems to have been a bit disingenuous in putting his arguments forward in regard to the historian's ability to be objective. He criticises Collingwood for being over sceptical, that historical certainty is not possible, early in the book while admitting that the historian's task is not easy. He states that there is always an interaction between the historian and his material, indeed that the historian must select what is important to history from a mass of facts. "The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context." At the same time, he wants to argue that a good historian will choose the correct facts and tell the true story.

I have not been able to ascertain exactly how one is to distinguish a relativist who is only putting forward a historical fiction from a good historian who has the right facts and the right take on them. I think we can agree that academic dishonesty is not acceptable but I am not sure how he deals with simply getting it wrong. He seems to be quite satisfied that he is among the elect.

He thus sees himself as a staunch historical objectivist in spite of having given his readers many reasons for considering history to be a relativistic undertaking.

[bahareh ebnealian · Rating 4 out of 5]

عجب کتاب محشریه ! فلسفه‌ی تاریخه و به یک معنا فلسفه‌ی علوم اجتماعی. در ضمن اینکه سنگین نیست می‌تونه نگاه آدم رو به تاریخ، واقعیت و... عوض کنه

[Marc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Still an impressive read. See my more elaborate review in my Sense-of-History-account: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not sure how I am going to be able to review this, albeit short (52 pages out of 177 contain EH Carrs lecture - the rest being several prefaces, notes and an index) and quite heavy take on the stated subject. I had to read this many years ago when I was studying and did not get on that well with it then - and being a glutton for punishment that I am, I thought I would re-read it and may just appreciate it. Wrong. It is not that academic, EH Carr writes well, but it is heavy and again I was wading towards the last twenty or so pages. Life at my age is too short to bother with getting bogged down. Skimmed read the last chapter. I would recommend for any History student for sure; essential, but I have too many unread books to read. Personally this is a two star book (Sorry), but objectively, due to his take on modern day history (over the first half of the 20thC people actually were becoming more conscious of often, quite cataclysmic events that they actually felt they were on a stage of major importance), I will give it a quite respectable three star.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although he penned an immense collection of writings on the Soviet Union and international relations, most historians outside of his speciality know E. H. Carr as the author of What is History?, a historiographical work that challenged the traditional mindset of the field of history. Organized as a transcript of a series of lectures he gave on the subject, Carr attempts to answer the work’s eponymous question by examining trends, and several key scholars, over the field’s development and rejecting them in favor of what he considers a more balanced approach to the study of history.

In posing the question, Carr argues that any answer one gives will reflect the context of the time and society in which they live. He begins his study in the 1830s when, in a reaction to the “moralizing history” of the past, historians entered an era that he terms the “common-sense view of history” or “cult of facts”, wherein the objective of history was to collect as many “facts” as possible and then provide an interpretation of those facts, which are assumed to “speak for themselves”. With an emphasis on the importance of the “facts”, Carr sees the 19th century method as producing an overabundance of data at the cost of exploring the meaning behind it. The “fetishism” of documents that results from this philosophy also ignores the biases that these documents hold. Things change in the 20th century when historians began to realize that a focus on the “facts” of history ignores the reality that these “facts” are chosen by the historian and are thus a subjective matter of interpretation in and of themselves; the historian, especially the modern one, is able to pick among an endless series of “facts” or “happenings” and, by choosing and writing about them, builds their worth as “historical facts”. History transforms from “discovering the facts and seeing what they have to say” into a way of seeing the past through the lens of the present and attempting to re-enact the phenomena in question. With the historian and their background (rather than the facts) now playing a crucial role, Carr’s first answer to “what is history” is that history “is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.” In other words, Carr sees history as a dynamic process, one where facts have little intrinsic meaning and are shaped by those who study them.

In his second chapter, Carr focuses on the idea that the individual and their society are inseparable, again arguing against the “common-sense” view of history, which posited that history was “written by individuals about individuals”. Both the historian and the subject are products of their social context, and Carr reemphasizes the need to understand the standpoint from which the former wrote in order to understand the work. As for the subject, he rejects the view of history as being moved by individuals acting as individuals, seeing it as unrepresentative of the complex society that spawned them and contributed to their salience. His second answer, therefore, is that history “is a social process, in which individuals are engaged as social beings” and “the record of what one age finds worthy of note in another.” In other words, history looks at the interplay between prominent individuals and their societies and, by incorporating the context of their own age, helps historians and readers understand their present (and, perhaps, future) through the past.

After arguing for the inclusion of history as a science in the third chapter, Carr segues into the topic of causation in history in chapter four, where he posits another answer to the “what is history” question, arguing that “[t]he study of history is the study of causes”. It is the duty of the historian to determine the numerous causes that led to a particular event and then organize them by importance, a contradictory approach that forces one to simplify at the same they diversify. After arguing against “causeless” and “accidental” events, he posits that one studies causes because they lead to the establishment of general trends, which are important when they can be applied elsewhere. In Carr’s view, those who study chance and accident are missing the point of history, which (as stated earlier) is not merely to establish “what happened”, but to help us understand our present and future through the past, something only possible by looking at the general rather than the unique.

Carr’s last two chapters explore the notions of progress and objectivity in history, and how they evolved, most notably arguing against the trend of historians to place moral judgments in their work, particularly those based on the values of their own era. Continuing his theme of the interplay of society and the individual, Carr also argues that, if any judgment is to be made at all, it should be on institutions and not only specific people, and that one should take a broad view of what each historical process led to. He ends by suggesting that historians look outside of Western Europe and the English-speaking world and claims that the historian should think of change not as something to be feared, but as an achievement.

Over half a century after its initial publication, What is history? is still widely read due to its succinct summary of the discipline, the controversy it engendered, and the lasting impact it had on the field. Although its arguments should be intuitive to most modern historians, it is necessary (although, due to its age, not sufficient) reading for anyone involved with pursuit of history as an academic endeavour. There are certainly criticisms that can be levied against it (for example I think that his emphasis on studying only the “winners” of history tends to lead to an incomplete historical picture), but overall it paints a detailed picture of the development of the discipline and provides a solid foundation for the study of historiography.

[Laya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Agreed with Carr:
- It is the job of historian to theorize/interpret historical facts with the bias they have and they should be self-conscious about their bias. History cannot be meaningless or directionless. It is not value-neutral.
-However, there is no need to push history into endless relativism. There can be an objective framework to interpret facts and propose causes. But this does not have to be an immovable test of significance out of history.

Disagreed:
- Rejection of moral judgement for individuals in history. Despite his best arguments, he could not make a compelling case to exclude historical figures from judgement (positive and negative) without resorting to determinism or pragmatism. Unique individuals in history who embodied extreme character traits that were necessary in setting the wheels in motion have to be assigned atleast some credit.
-Unwillingness to explore some alternate directions that would have taken place, which again orients him towards hard determinism. I am sympathetic to his defense against historians who criticized him for not recognizing the losers in history while writing about russian revolution but the disregarding the role of accidents could have been done in a better way.

Mixed thoughts:
- His pragmatism throughout the lectures followed the logic of instrumentalism. Agree that there has to be a conscious bias on the part of historian but it is a weak agreement overall. Not using the study of history only as a means to an end but as an end in itself maybe is impossible but attempts towards it are still worthy.

[Georgina K. Koutrouditsou · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ένας μεγάλος Δάσκαλος,ένα σπουδαίο βιβλίο.
Γραμμένο τη δεκαετία του '60 και όμως τόσο επίκαιρο!
"Μετά τον Μαρξ & τον Φρόυντ,ο ιστορικός δεν έχει πια καμία δικαιολογία να θεωρεί τον εαυτό του αποστασιοποιημένο παρατηρητή,εκτός κοινωνίας και εκτός ιστορίας.Ζούμε τον αιώνα της αυτοσυνείδησης και ο ιστορικός μπορεί και πρέπει να ξέρει τι κάνει."
Τι άλλο να προσθέσει κανείς;!
Μπορεί να μην είναι ένα πολυσέλιδο έργο,παρ'όλα αυτά διαβάζεται αργά και αρκετά προσεχτικά.

[hossein Babadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

نویسنده کتاب، محقق و مورخ مشهور در زمینه تاریخ شوروی و انقلاب بلشویکیست و بخش زیادی از نظرات و پرسش و پاسخ های کلی در زمینه تاریخ و فلسفه تاریخ را ارائه کرده، ضمنا بیشتر علاقه مند به نظرات مارکس و منتقد نظرات پوپره

[Rhys · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly a classic. "The abstract standard or value, divorced from society and divorced from history, is as much an illusion as the abstract individual" (p.84). And, as Lenin said, politics begins where the masses are - in the places where we are.

[eliana ｡⋆୨୧˚ · Rating 4 out of 5]

a genuinely fantastic, thought-provoking introduction to historiography. it was much more accessible than i thought it would be. it gets quite philosophical too, which i didn't anticipate but really enjoyed!

[Allen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you to Jackie Hurwitz for even reminding me of What is History? by Edward Hallett Carr.

I read this book for a course on Historiography at Middlebury College in 2004. I should remark that this was the first book on the subject in the syllabus because, if I had read some of the other literature first, my impression may have been substantially less positive. In my opinion, positivism is the problem behind Carr's theory. Carr just puts too much credibility in the validity and Truth of facts.

I remember one part of the book when Carr is exploring the nature of History by examining the historical event of Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. Carr does a marvelous job at showing exactly what we as historians can and cannot know about this historical narrative but this accomplishment is also his limitation. If a historian looks only at events, any interpretation is little more than literary analysis. While I am not a member of the school of thought that believes that any literary narrative - or historical narrative for that matter - is so fraught with bias, prejudice and misinformation as to be useless to the study of History, I do believe that a theory that is limited to a literary narrative is bound to be ineffective. Historians must consider the virtues of structuralism, social science, anthropology, linguistics and even a bit of post-modernism.

Bear in mind that I have not read this book in 6 years and even then I did so for homework making my recollections of the author, his theories and his arguments really just what I have retained after all these years. I would recommend this book because it is an enjoyable read and introduces its reader to some incredibly heady concepts. After this introduction, the reader cannot persist in pleading ignorance i historical conversation as Historiography is a formidable tool. Yet as a toolbox of only one tool, this approach must be complemented by other historiographical theories to be functional.

[Hong · Rating 3 out of 5]

i know this is a good book but i just didn't have the patience/knowledge in history to fully appreciate it. but i did learn a few things, that history is not as simple/straight-forward as what i used to think. History is essentially an interplay between the subjective and objective; the past, present and future - how the past is viewed from the present, and how the present is viewed based on the past.
And that historical "facts" aren't purely facts as we know them, because the historian has to select and some form of value/moral-judgment is involved.
Also, an "objective" historian is not one that bases all his records on facts in a disconnected manner, but one who can rise above his society/time to view that incident. Which i do agree with, since there is inevitably a value judgment involved to determine what facts get recorded in the first place, and how to organise them etc (don't we learn all about that in law..)

Perhaps one day i'll go through it again properly :) But anyone studying history or the humanities should read this!

[Marut Lucky]

This is the third time i am reading this book.Although the title of the book seem that it might be easy to read. But it is not so. only when you have read a lot of history and philosophicial discussion of person like Hegel and other historians you can comprehend this book. So i have put this book in the shelve of to be read again and again and i hope that after many years i may be able to understand this book very well. But anyone who has read a lot of history books will surely like this book. Specially academecians, who are reading history in their course.

[Martin Empson · Rating 4 out of 5]

My enthusiasm for this book is about more than its charm. Marxists and others will be able to pick holes in Carr's arguments, but no serious student of history (of any political persuasion) can afford to ignore the ideas and arguments herein. This is a stimulating and enjoyable book that will make every reader think through their own ideas. It is to be recommended.

Full review: http://resolutereader.blogspot.co.uk/...

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are interested, and perhaps new, to the topic of how to study history, then this book should be very interesting.
America’s culture wars started as a war between conservatives and progressives, many years ago, and this essay may have started it.
The introduction alone, which surveys the origin of the debate over how to study history, is well worth the price of the paperback. Eye-opening.

[Nezam · Rating 4 out of 5]

از متن کتاب: آلمانیها خوشوقت می شوند که قضاوت اخلاقی مورخ به جای آنکه اجتماعی را محکوم کنند که هیتلر را بوجود آورد به نکوهش تبهکاری فردی او بپردازد. مورخ باید درباره ی نهاد قضاوت کند نه درباره ی افردای که آن را بوجود آوردند.
پ ن : یکی از بهترین کتابهایی که دیدت رو به مطالعه ی آثار تاریخی عوض می کند