Ohio History Journal

PROCEEDINGS                              243

 

by the Society as its chief contribution in connection with the

State-wide celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Establish-

ment of Civil Government within the limits of the State.                His

general presentation is printed in this number of the QUARTERLY

as a part of the "Prospectus for a History for the State of Ohio."

(pp. 249-259.)

Miss Bertha E. Josephson, editorial associate of the Missis-

sippi Valley Historical Review, was next on the program.

 

CRITICAL INVESTIGATION versus CARELESS PRESENTATION

By BERTHA E. JOSEPHSON

Ever since the rise of the critical school of historical writing in

America, over half a century ago, there has been a marked increase in

the total quantity of historical production.  Unfortunately, this has been

accompanied by a marked decline in the literary quality of historical presen-

tation. As early as 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, in his presidential address

before the American Historical Association uttered an eloquent plea for

the use of the imagination in the treatment of historical subjects.¹  Eight

years later, cognizant that "the writing of history was not in a satisfactory

state," the American Historical Association appointed a committee con-

sisting of Jean J. Jusserand, ambassador from France, chairman, Charles

W. Colby, Wilbur C. Abbott, and John S. Bassett. These scholars were

requested to make a study of the matter and to report their analysis and

offer their suggestions as to the possibility of improving the craftsmanship

and style of historical writing.

This study resulted in the composition of four inspiring papers in

which the respective essayists treated the subject in three phases: an ex-

amination of the existing situation, with some discussion of how it came

about; a consideration of style of expression in historical writing; and a

recommendation for the training of historians in effective presentation.² On

the first point the four members of the committee agreed in their slightly

overlapping essays: that historical science had "succeeded or replaced his-

torical literature."³ On the second, they were unanimous in commenting:

"History must conform to truth . . . it must at the same time be as inter-

esting as life itself."⁴ But on the third point they could only advise that

it took training, time, and effort to master the technique of the art of

effective historical presentation.5

1 Theodore Roosevelt, "History as Literature," American Historical Review (New

York), XVIII (1913), 473-89.

2 Jean J. Jusserand, "The Historian's Work"; Wilbur C. Abbott, "The Influence

of Graduate Instruction on Historical Writing"; Charles W. Colby, "The Craftsmanship

of the Historian"; and John S. Bassett, "The Present State of History Writing," in

The Writing of History (New York, 1926).

3 Abbott, "The Influence of Graduate Instruction." 39. See also Colby, "The

Craftsmanship of the Historian," 74; Jusserand, "The Historian's Work," 11; Bassett,

"The Present State of History Writing." 112.

4 Jusserand, "The Historian's Work," 11-12; Abbott, "The Influence of Graduate

Instruction," 39; Colby, "The Craftsmanship of the Historian," 67; Bassett, "The

Present State of History Writing," 113.

5 Jusserand, "The Historian's Work," 17-18; Abbott, "The Influence of Graduate

Instruction," 55; Colby, "Craftsmanship of the Historian." 76; Bassett, "The Present

State of History Writing," 116. See also letter of J. Franklin Jameson in Bassett,

"The Present State of History Writing," 127-35, especially, 128-29,

• 1
 

244     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

Writing about the same time as the authors of these essays, another

historian, Homer C. Hockett, argued that it was "futile to talk of literary

values or motives in the presentation of the results of a bit of scientific

investigation." He admitted, however, that "it would not seem too much to

expect . . . that anyone capable of doing a worth while bit of investigation

should be capable also of presenting a suitable report of it."6 Furthermore,

he enumerated as the essential earmarks of the historical writer: "Com-

mand of good grammar; discrimination in the choice of words in order to

express some nice shades of meaning; ability to perceive the interrelation-

ships of data; and aptness in organizing matter according to the requirements

of these interrelationships."7

Whether scientific historical writing can be popular in appeal is a moot

point. The contents of a monograph or a treatise perhaps cannot be dressed

up to attract the lay reader. The biography and the general history, how-

ever, can, and no doubt should, be written so as to interest more than a

limited group of professional scholars.

Yet, regardless of whether history is written for the layman or for

the scholar, it must be admitted that historical writing is still far from

being in a satisfactory state. The appeal of a Theodore Roosevelt and a

committee of the American Historical Association notwithstanding, his-

torical scholars continue to turn out unrelated cross-sectional bits of his-

tory "with about as much literary quality as an algebraic formula,"⁸ "lack-

ing in form," and rough as "corduroy."⁹ "The deadening effect of the dis-

sertation" is repeatedly obvious in scholarly articles and books, and it is

needless to point out that "even the professional reader . . . would . . .

welcome a change from the incredible dreariness of some of these produc-

tions."10

Is it not possible that the whole trouble lies in the fact that the average

historian ceases to be thoroughly scientific once he has done his digging

for materials and acquired his notes? He may carry his methodology one

step further and organize those same notes in systematic fashion. When

he approaches the task of writing, however, he forgets his obligations to

meticulous workmanship and dashes off a synthesis in hodge-podge manner.

He mutilates the rules of rhetoric and butchers good English; he copies

quotations with haste and inaccuracy; he cares not whether they agree in

person or tense with the context of his sentences: he fails to introduce

them properly or to weave them with skill into the body of his paper;

his footnotes are fragmentary, inconsistent, and incorrect; his conclusions

are crude, cumbersome, and ambiguous. He has prepared but a rough draft

of what should be carefully worked over before it can deserve the title of

completed article or volume.

Yet, in most cases, he is satisfied with what he has done and hustles

his manuscript off to be read at an historical meeting or even to be printed

in an historical publication. Has he not already spent a great many hours in

finding, recording, and arranging his evidence? Time is pressing; his insti-

tution urges him to "produce"; his own ego works in the same direction.

Teaching duties and social obligations crowd his spare moments. Why

should he try to express himself clearly. accurately, and understandably?

History is no literary art. He is writing for scholars only, not for a

6 Homer C. Hockett, "The Literary Motive in Writing History," Mississippi

Valley Historical Review (Cedar Rapids), XII (1926), 481.

7 Ibid., 482.

8 Ibid., 473.

9 Jameson's letter in Bassett, "The Present State of History Writing," 129.

10 Abbott, "The Influence of Graduate Instruction," 40-41.

• 2
 

PROCEEDINGS                           245

 

critical public. Let his colleagues be content with this half-baked effort of

historical synthesis. Hard labor has been expended in investigation; what

matter how poor the presentation?

This point of view was deplored by the late Senator Albert J. Bever-

idge in an article entitled "The Making of a Book," which appeared some

years ago in the Saturday Evening Post. "Writers of the present day have

as much talent as those of former times," Beveridge believed, "but do

they have as much art? Are they not in a hurry to get their stuff out?

Does not their work show haste? If it does," he warned, "it will not last,"

for "easy writing makes hard reading and . . . hard writing makes easy

reading."11  By hard writing the Senator explained that he meant the kind

that was "done over many times."   "In most cases," he declared, "what

the writer sets down at first is at best merely an outline of what finally is

produced." "Lay it aside for a while," this writer advised, "and then go

over it slowly, thinking about the matter of each paragraph, each sentence,

each word. It will be found that much more must be said at one point,

much less at another, and that some parts must be left out" altogether.^l2

Then, too, the historical writer, whenever he uses footnote citations,

is not always careful and consistent. What are documentary footnotes but

guideposts along the path of scientific investigation? They are the author's

evidence of the source of his information; they are at the same time the

reader's guide to the materials employed. There is nothing literary about

footnote citations. They can only be scientific and accurate.

It does not matter as far as literary style is concerned whether there

is a period or a comma after the roman volume number in a footnote. But

it does matter vitally to a fellow scholar when a writer notes an initial

citation with only the last name of the author, no title, no place or date of

publication, and a running page reference which includes the entire article

or volume. There may be several authors by the same surname. The same

author may have written a number of different works. The same work

may be published in several editions paged differently. The quotation or

paraphrase may be an obscure sentence or paragraph on but one page of

the work cited. How can the reader be guided to materials by such a

feeble indication? What evidence of the author's source is such inadequate

information?  Yet, the historical guild, though it agrees in theory that a

remedy is needed for such unscientific methods, has done little in practice

to achieve a uniform system of footnote citation. It insists that the scien-

tific historian shall employ critical methods of investigation but it makes no

effort to see that historical citations--the earmarks of that investigation--

be recorded in a scientific manner.

In addition to consistency in footnote citation, are there not simple

rules to be followed for the writing of historical narrative?   Cannot

history courses on bibliography and methods of research be supplemented

with instruction which will help make the transference of research ma-

terials into finished historical composition less of a hit-and-miss proposition

and more of a scientific process? Why should so much time in both under-

graduate and graduate study be spent in acquiring information and so little

in learning how to present it?

The most unimportant classroom assignment can be made a practice

test for future writing of greater moment. Habits formed during student

days are not easily thrust aside afterwards. It is necessary to teach the

11 Albert J. Beveridge, "The Making of a Book," Saturday Evening Post (Phila-

delphia), CXCIX (October 23, 1926), 15.

12 Ibid., 14.

• 3
 

246     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

future historian how to search for his materials and how to record them.

It is also important for him to learn to weigh and judge his findings with-

out prejudice or bias. But instruction should not stop at this point.

The historical writer must know what to discard and what to retain;

he must learn to arrange his selections for their most effective form of

presentation. Throughout this tedious process he must be able to retain

an unabated enthusiasm for his subject matter. Then too, he must acquire

practice in wielding a facile pen which will weave with lucidity an attrac-

tive word pattern out of the scattered threads of historical research. He

must be capable of quoting without interrupting his narrative and he must

be able to paraphrase without distorting the meaning. Above all, he must

ever be aware of the possibilities for improvement. He must constantly be

cognizant of his own ignorance. His mind must always be alert for new

ideas and his eye must ever be searching for new materials. He must not

rest content on past laurels nor slacken his efforts to achieve improvement.

He must be willing to revise and to polish his written drafts indefinitely.

He must also be willing to check and recheck tirelessly, to proofread, to

collate, and again to proofread, before he allows his manuscript to face

the barrage of reader criticism. When he has conscientiously and faith-

fully adhered to all these rules of good workmanship, then, and only then,

can he be said to have produced historical writing in which critical investi-

gation is matched by careful presentation.

The next speaker was Professor Harlan Hatcher, of the Ohio

State University, state director of the Federal Writers' Project.

W. P. A. in Ohio. An abstract of his remarks follows:

THE HISTORICAL OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED THROUGH

THE WRITERS' PROJECT

By HARLAN HATCHER

Nearly everybody now knows the story of the beginnings of the

Federal Writers' Project, which was organized two and one-half years ago

to provide for unemployed writers of different capacities. Under the direc-

tion of Henry G. Alsberg, the Federal Writers' Project undertook the

tremendous task of preparing the American Guide Series to reveal to the

citizens of the United States a picture of their country. Books have been

prepared on each of the New England States, and have been published by

the Houghton Mifflin Company. Guides to the remaining states will appear

at frequent intervals.

The question is now raised, "What are the historical opportunities

offered through the Writers' Project?" First, let it be made clear that the

project is not adapted to take the place of the solid, substantial and scholarly

type of history now projected under the auspices of the Ohio State

Archaeological and Historical Society. The Writers' Project in Ohio em-

ploys 132 people, in all capacities, including typists, research workers,

writers and editors. In most cases this staff is drawn directly from the

employment division of the W. P.A.    They are not trained historians.

But there is a type of work which they are able to do under direction

which cannot well be undertaken by private groups.

The kind of contribution which they are able to make might best be

illustrated by specific reference to the books now being prepared by the

Writers' Project in Ohio. Chief among these is the Ohio Guide which will

become a part of the total American Guide Series, The first third of this

• 4