HISTORIANS AND THEIR HELPERS*
by JOHN HALL STEWART
Associate Professor of History,
Western Reserve University
For far too many years, far too many
people have been
calling themselves--or permitting
others to call them--"histor-
ians." I have been conscious of
this ever since I first entered the
ranks of what we academic folk like to
think of as the "pro-
fessional historians." But I was
never as fully aware of the
dangers inherent in this common
practice until I began to pre-
pare this paper. I had intended to call
it "Types of Historians."
Then it dawned upon me that this title
would not do. If not a
contradiction in terms, it was, to say
the least, confusing. In the
last analysis, if there are types
of historians, they may be reduced
to two in number--the bad and the good.
And since obviously
the former should be liquidated as
rapidly as possible (in any
case they should not be permitted to
lay claim to the title of
"historian"), only the
latter, that is, the authentic historians,
remain. These vary among themselves not
according to whether
they are historians or whether
they are not, but simply according
to the subject matter (for example,
military, economic, religious,
or other) which they treat.
I realize that to many of you this may
sound like the pro-
verbial academic dialectic, that it may
savor of the pedantic.
But here, as a student of history (note
that, at least as yet, I
make no pretense of being an historian),
I feel that I must make
my position clear. In order to clarify
what I have in mind, let
me define my terms. Proceeding upon the
assumption that a poor
definition is better than none, I shall
endeavor to indicate what
the terms "history" and
"historian" mean, at least to me.
One of my former professors once
defined history as "the
* This is the text of an address given
at the annual meeting and dinner of the
Lake County chapter of the Western
Reserve Historical Society held at the Parmly
Hotel, Painesville, April 27, 1949.
154
Historians and Their Helpers 155
memory of things said and done"--a
deceptively simple defini-
tion, which implies both facts and
understanding. And to me
that is just what history is--knowledge
and understanding. In-
evitably it has to deal with the
past, for, in actuality, the
"present" is virtually
nonexistent. We cannot deal with the
future until we have reached it; and no
sooner do we reach it
than it is past. It is reminiscent of
the old saw, "Who can say
why tomorrow today will be
yesterday?"
It is not my purpose in this address to
deal with the uses
of history, the reasons for
studying it, or the place of history in
the life of the average man and woman.
Obviously all of us
appreciate at least one of these, else
we should not be here this
evening. Let us proceed, therefore,
upon the assumption that we
have at least a general, common
understanding of what history
is, history of nature and of human
nature.
Let us turn to the more difficult
question, "What is an his-
torian?" Too often the word
"historian" is used to identify
anyone who studies or teaches or writes about history. Here I
must be arbitrary. To me an historian
is more than this. He is
an artist, an artist whose
supreme creation is the re-creation of a
once living past. He works with many
instruments and many
skills, sometimes in miniature,
sometimes in the large; but, in
the final analysis, his greatest
qualities are imagination (para-
doxical though this may seem when
dealing with a factual sub-
ject) and expression. No matter how
extensive his knowledge, no
matter how vast his bibliographical
equipment, no matter how
profound his understanding of what he
knows, no matter how
scientific his techniques, no matter
how conscientious his reliance
upon the work of experts in a thousand
and one special crafts,
no matter how great his integrity or
how earnest his desire to
achieve "objectivity"--no
matter--does he lack the ability to
project himself into the past, to
recapture it, and to portray it
graphically as well as intelligently, in words that
live and will
continue so to do--no matter what his erudition, does
he lack
these qualities, he is but as "sounding brass and
tinkling cymbal."
History does not really exist until it
is recorded and formed
into a synthesis. If this work is not
well done, history might
156 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
better not exist. But it must exist.
Without it the human race
would lack not merely the romance of the past,
but the experience
of previous generations, experience
which is of most practical
value in enabling mankind to understand
the problems of today
and anticipate those of tomorrow.
To me, therefore, the historian is a rara
avis, one to be
envied, one to be honored, one to be
emulated, but one seldom
to be caught up with or equaled by the
lesser breed of common
men. Like a good teacher, he is born,
not made. True, he may
be "developed" through
special training, but only if the divine
spark has been supplied by nature; and
frequently nature nour-
ishes the spark and fans it into full
flame without benefit of
schooling in the modern techniques
which caused G. M. Trevelyan
to lament that "Clio the muse of
history has become Clio the
card index."
It would appear, therefore, that the
historian, per se, is a
very remarkable fellow. He does exist,
and lest you be skeptical
by this time, let me mention but one
name--Francis Parkman-
as an example of what I have in mind.
Yet the historian can
produce the fruit of his genius only
with the aid of a host of
unseen and unsung workers. These are
the helpers of historians,
these are you and I (we must be careful
to give full recognition
to any real historians who may be in
our midst); these are the
people about whom I wish to talk
tonight.
When the conductor of a great symphony
orchestra steps
upon the podium and raises his baton,
three things must come to
the minds of his audience: the men who
composed the music
they are about to hear, the men who are
reproducing it, and the
man under whose guidance they
coordinate their collective efforts
in such manner as to produce a great
interpretation. All of these
elements are essential. Without them
the phenomenon of a
modern symphony concert could not take
place. And yet how
dependent they are upon others, others
who are seldom the object
of the thoughts of anyone concerned.
Let me enumerate a few:
the scientists (specialists in sound)
who designed the instruments
upon which the musicians perform; the
craftsmen who fashioned
those instruments and who keep them in
repair; the skilled
Historians and Their Helpers 157
copyists, printers, proofreaders,
arrangers, and others who pro-
vide the music, from the simplest
sequence of percussion marks
to the master score in front of the
conductor; the experts in
architectural acoustics who designed
the hall in which the per-
formance is given, and whose work makes
the music palatable
as well as possible; and the multitude
of others, from wood-
cutters in tropical forests to
stagehands in American cities, from
electricians to ticket-takers, from
janitors to managers of tours,
from musical librarians to
baggage-masters.
This list of examples could be extended
indefinitely. It
could be multiplied many times. And
when we finished we would
have reached the conclusion that
without the little man, the
"helper," the
"great" could not work so effectively. True, the
little man in himself is not enough;
but, then, neither is the
artist!
Who are the helpers of historians? To
me they consist of
two general species, which I choose to
call "tool-makers" and
"tool-users."
The basic work of the tool-makers of
history is to do just
what their title implies--to provide
the tools with which the
users (and ultimately even the
historians themselves) may create
the supreme work of art. In other
words, these helpers procure
the raw materials and do the
preliminary rough work on them.
They are the people who seek out the
historical riches, who
bring them to light, who
"process" them sufficiently so that they
may be used. They operate the
historical mines, railways, smel-
ters, and refineries.
The tool-makers of history doubtless
may be considered
from the point of view of numerous
categories and subdivisions.
I prefer, however, to classify them
under two general headings.
In the first class I would put
antiquarians, archivists, librarians,
and the like. These indispensable
people locate and accumulate
the data. Then they organize and
possibly catalog it for reference
purposes. For convenience they may
transcribe or even trans-
late much of the "word"
material which they are using. In
addition to these obviously invaluable
accomplishments, they
act as custodians of the materials
after they have been collected,
158 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
organized, arranged, and transcribed or
translated. Last but
not least, they act as guides and
advisers to persons who wish to
use the data. And today their multifarious duties include
the ap-
plication of such methods of
reproducing and recording ma-
terials as the microfilm, the
photostat, the mimeograph, and the
microphoto, all of which naturally
involves a wider knowledge
of the use and maintenance of the
machines utilized in these
processes.
My second class of historical
tool-makers would include
those who edit collections of, or
selections from, the accumulated
raw materials, who supervise the
publication of such collections,
and who frequently supplement these
collections with erudite com-
mentaries. Moreover, this category
includes bibliographers, those
who make lists and bibliographies which
may be used as guides
to available collections. (It is this
second class-of tool-makers to
which I myself belong, at least thus
far, for my research has
been limited to a bibliography and an
edited collection of docu-
ments.)
These are the people who make data more
readily available,
in whole or in part, the ones who make
it really functional for
the researcher. Other categories of
tool-makers of history there
doubtless are; but so far as I
personally am concerned, the ones
I have named are the most significant.
Now comes the second
main division of the Helpers of
History, the tool-users.
Whereas the tool-makers of
history procure the raw materials
and do the preliminary rough work on
them, the tool-users of
history fashion the crude or processed
raw materials into finished
products and utilize and distribute the
final results. These tool-
users I divide into major groups--the
machinists and the en-
gineers.
The machinists of history are those
specialists who actually
make use of the crude or processed materials collected
by the
tool-makers. They are the ones who
write definitive studies of
limited periods of history, of
historical movements, even bio-
graphical studies and minute analyses. (In some cases,
especially
among the biographers, these workers may
achieve the status of
historian.) But usually they are simply what their name implies,
Historians and Their Helpers 159
machine makers, making machines
which other workers use to
produce more finished products. In
fact, they might just as well be
classified among the tool-makers as
among the tool-users!
When we reach the engineers of history
we encounter the
first real users of historical tools. These are
the ones who begin
the process of synthesis, using the
works of editors and biblio,
graphers, consulting the collections of
archivists, and studying
the monographs and other writings of
the "machinists." Whereas
the work of the tool-makers is
principally collective, that of the
engineers involves more than
collection. It involves selection,
organization, integration,
interpretation, consideration of the
factors of cause and effect, and
graphic presentation. In fact,
here we encounter the borderline
between would-be historians
and historians in actuality. The
distinction may be determined by
applying the factors mentioned
previously. Unless the work pos-
sesses the vitality of an imaginative
and authentic recreation of
the past or of one of its phases, no
matter what its other good
qualities, it may be history, but
its creator can scarcely claim
to be an historian--he is only a
tool-maker or a tool-user. He does
not belong to the third and exalted
category of artists who utilize
to the full what the others have done.
But here again I am getting back to historians;
and the
main object of this talk is to stay away
from them, to stay with
their helpers, without whom the
historians would have great dif-
ficulty existing. I am interested in
them, not only because I my-
self am one of them, but because you
members of the Western
Reserve Historical Society are among
the most important of
these helpers. At the risk of
offending, I am going to classify
you among the first class of
tool-makers to whom I referred a
little while back, those tool-makers
whom we call antiquarians,
archivists, and librarians. And I
suppose that the bulk of the
valuable work that you do would come
under the heading of
antiquarianism.
Too frequently the so-called historian
is apt to dismiss with
contempt the work of the antiquarian,
even the antiquarian him-
self. He is apt to forget that, after
all, the antiquarian does
have an historical sense; otherwise he
would not be interested in
160 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
antiquarianism. The basic difference
between an antiquarian and
an historian is that the antiquarian is
more interested in facts,
while the historian is primarily concerned with the meaning
of
the facts. But without the facts, the
historian would have nothing
in which to be interested, nothing to
interpret. And, although he
may take only a sample of the facts for
his work, nevertheless,
the larger the area from which to
select samples, the greater
the possibility that the sample will
reflect adequately what it is
supposed to.
The work which you in this association
are doing is essen-
tially local in its scope, and from the
professional point of
view, social and cultural in its
implications. Hence, to many it
might seem that the student of
political or economic or military
or religious history might find little
in what you do to aid him
in his researches. Yet, when all is
said and done, the social and
cultural history of an era is but a
mirror of the political and
material life of the time.
Thus far I have simply endeavored to
give you some im-
pressions which I as a student of
history have acquired. Be-
fore I conclude, I would like to
comment briefly on three items,
each inseparable from historians and
their helpers, each of vital
significance to all of them. These
three items are: (1) the study
of so-called cultural history; (2) the
responsibility of the his-
torian in the study and writing of
history; and (3) the place
of the antiquarian in the work of the
historian.
By cultural history we generally mean
the history of the
way in which people have lived--their
ideas, their pleasures,
their homes, their clothing and food,
their artistic, musical,
literary, and other intellectural
pursuits--as contrasted with those
more familiar phases of history which
consider primarily the
political, economic, and military
factors. Of the study of cultural
history I would say two things. First,
we must always remember
that the history of a people, in order
to be understood, must be
viewed as a whole, not solely
from the point of view of politics,
or economics, or art, or religion, but
as an integrated whole,
comprised of all these things in some
kind of balance. We must
never forget that these things did not
occur simultaneously in
Historians and Their Helpers 161
the development of a society. As you
recall from your knowl-
edge of this Western Reserve, the
history of a pioneer com-
munity is originally concerned with subsistence--food,
shelter,
clothing, crops, pasture, water, soil,
and so on. I am quite sure
that, while our forefathers in this
lower lakes region may well
have been impressed with some of the
beauties of the Ohio
countryside, they doubtless viewed them
mainly with the practical
eyes of settlers. In fact the things which constitute
what are
usually considered the
"cultural" life of a people seldom come
into being until such time as the
community has acquired a
stable polity and an economy which
transcends the subsistence
level--in fact, usually not until the
economy has developed
urban groups with all that they
represent. Moreover, until such
time as people possess sufficient
leisure and material wealth to
permit them to pay attention to
something besides bread and
butter, they are not apt to turn their attention to
such phenomena
as higher education, the joys of music,
or the pleasures of
architecture. Frequently a vigorous
cultural life continues for
some time after its political and
economic sources have dissolved
into ruin; but it is not apt to
originate without the previous ex-
istence of such sources.
Again one must remember that there is a
difference be-
tween a society in which there is an
active cultural life, so-
called, and a society in which an original
culture is being pro-
duced. For example, there was, for many
years, a very active
cultural life in New England long
before there was a distinctive
New England culture. What happened was
that the settlers, at
least those who could afford to do so, either adapted
to their
environment the culture of their native
lands, or, if they did give
any sign of creativeness among
themselves, they simply aped
the patterns of the mature culture
which they had brought with
them. There is nothing reprehensible
about this. It is simply
an historical fact, must be
acknowledged as such, and must not
be evaded on grounds of local pride or
sensitivity. In due time
there developed a more characteristic
New England cultural
life, a product of the area itself,
reflecting the life and ideas of
the people, and constituting one of the
foundations of the culture
162 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
of the U.S.A. In either case, for that
matter in both cases, the
known facts concerning the cultural
life, whether original or im-
ported, constitute an essential part of
its history, and must be
given serious consideration as such.
Lastly in this connection, perhaps the
greatest work that
the antiquarian and the student of
local history can do is in this
field of cultural history. For example,
what you have done
with regard to the life and times of
James A. Garfield, what
has been done in Cleveland in
preserving materials for the story
of the Shakers. These are vital to the
historian; the value of them
should not be underestimated. Now what
about the responsibility
of the historian?
The historian's responsibility is
manifold--to the past, to
his own generation, to posterity. He
owes it to the past to recreate
it as authentically as possible. He
owes it to the present to ex-
plain that past as intelligently as
possible, so that his con-
temporaries may profit therefrom. He
owes it to the future to
make his history so graphic, so
universal in its appeal, that it
will be enjoyed by subsequent
generations. True, he is not al-
ways able to obtain all the material he
needs. For example, it
was much easier to write a study of the
causes of World War I
in 1934 than it was in 1914. This
disparity between what should
be done and what can be done, this
"dating" of history, frequently
causes skeptical souls to wonder if
there really is any such thing
as history-or if there ever can be.
Again I refer to Parkman, and
nothing more need be said.
As a human being, a product of a
particular time, a creature
of circumstances, the historian cannot
achieve the impossible.
Sometimes, however, he endeavors so to
do. In an attempt to
attain to that mythical objectivity,
about which students of his-
tory hear and say so much, he is apt to
try to avoid the necessity
of drawing conclusions. He may even
aver that anyone who knows
the period under discussion will have
reached his own conclus-
ions anyway; and that if he has not done
so, he can best accomp-
lish his purpose by studying the
period in detail! Such a pro-
cedure, seldom if ever used by my ideal
historian, is dangerous
to say the least. It may prompt the
layman to scorn the scholar
Historians and Their Helpers 163
who seeks the splendid isolation of his
ivory archive to study the
evidence (ostensibly for the ultimate
benefit of mankind), but
who refuses to descend to passing a
judgment--a judgment which
might conceivably enlighten and benefit
his fellowmen. If the
alleged expert does not deign to do so,
who else is qualified?
And hence, why bother, apart from
antiquarian enthusiasm, with
the investigation in the first place?
In the long run it would al-
most seem that the older, polemical
writers, despite their short-
comings, despite their lack of
scientific technique, were no greater
sinners than more modern historians. At
least they did not de-
part, with pedantic dignity (or perhaps
without it), leaving their
last chapters unfinished in an effort
to avoid the responsibility of
drawing a conclusion.
The responsibility of the historian has
been well expressed
by one who merits the title, the late
Sir William Ashley. "The
general cultivated public," he
said, "cares very little for ex-
actitude of detail; it wants to know
how individual episodes re-
lated to some large whole, and what the
SIGNIFICANCE of it
all has been. If scholars competently
trained will not try to satisfy
this natural and laudable desire,
INCOMPETENT writers will."
These words should be a sufficient
challenge to keep the tool-
makers and the tool-users in their
place, and to make the great
architects of history vigilant at all
times.
In conclusion, what of the place of the
antiquarian? Of
what value is your work to the
historian? In the first place, you
are salvaging, collecting, preserving
the tangible historical arti-
facts of this community, organizing,
classifying, and housing
them, making them available to the
historical scholar, both
amateur and professional. These things
in themselves are of
value. But what is of even greater
value, you are providing a
means whereby, through these
tangible evidences, the general
public may be made aware of their
collective past. You are
planting the seeds of history in the
community, nurturing them,
providing a harvest which the historian
may reap. And here I
must say a word of praise for that much
neglected individual, the
man who gives money, money which, in
many instances makes
possible the establishment of an
historical foundation or society,
164 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
and which enables such agencies to
function. But, whether you
give of time, of money, or of
enthusiasm, you make the his-
torian ever your debtor.
I have stated my position with regard
to historians and
their helpers. I have suggested
cautions in the study of cultural
history. I have pointed up some of the
shortcomings of profes-
sional students of history. It would
not seem quite fair were I to
omit a word of advice to a group of
local history enthusiasts,
antiquarians, or however you wish to
classify yourselves. What
I have to say may be summed up in these
words: your work is
invaluable; keep it up; respect the
name "historian"; do not
delude yourselves into believing that
being tool-makers or even
tool-users of history justifies your
labeling yourselves as his-
torians; derive satisfaction from
knowing that, next to being an
historian the most important thing is to be a member,
in good
standing, of the honorable association
of helpers of historians!
HISTORIANS AND THEIR HELPERS*
by JOHN HALL STEWART
Associate Professor of History,
Western Reserve University
For far too many years, far too many
people have been
calling themselves--or permitting
others to call them--"histor-
ians." I have been conscious of
this ever since I first entered the
ranks of what we academic folk like to
think of as the "pro-
fessional historians." But I was
never as fully aware of the
dangers inherent in this common
practice until I began to pre-
pare this paper. I had intended to call
it "Types of Historians."
Then it dawned upon me that this title
would not do. If not a
contradiction in terms, it was, to say
the least, confusing. In the
last analysis, if there are types
of historians, they may be reduced
to two in number--the bad and the good.
And since obviously
the former should be liquidated as
rapidly as possible (in any
case they should not be permitted to
lay claim to the title of
"historian"), only the
latter, that is, the authentic historians,
remain. These vary among themselves not
according to whether
they are historians or whether
they are not, but simply according
to the subject matter (for example,
military, economic, religious,
or other) which they treat.
I realize that to many of you this may
sound like the pro-
verbial academic dialectic, that it may
savor of the pedantic.
But here, as a student of history (note
that, at least as yet, I
make no pretense of being an historian),
I feel that I must make
my position clear. In order to clarify
what I have in mind, let
me define my terms. Proceeding upon the
assumption that a poor
definition is better than none, I shall
endeavor to indicate what
the terms "history" and
"historian" mean, at least to me.
One of my former professors once
defined history as "the
* This is the text of an address given
at the annual meeting and dinner of the
Lake County chapter of the Western
Reserve Historical Society held at the Parmly
Hotel, Painesville, April 27, 1949.
154