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,
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.
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.
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