Pieter Geyl
Pre-reading
Pieter Catharinus Arie Geyl (1887-1966) was a Dutch historian well known for his studies in early modern Dutch history and in historiography. His most famous book was Napoleon F or and Against, an account of how French historians of different ages and views have regarded the French Emperor. From Napoleon’s time to the present, French historians have presented Napoleon as either a Corsican adventurer who brought death and destruction to France or as a patriotic Frenchman who brought glory and prosperity. Geyl used his book to advance his view that all historians are influenced by the present when writing history and thus all historical writing is transitory. In Geyl’s view, there never can be a definitive account for all ages because every age has a different view of the past. For Geyl, the best that historians could do was to critically examine their beliefs and urge their readers to do likewise. Geyl felt that history was a progress of “argument without end”, but did not feel that this meant that an “anything goes” interpretation of history was acceptable.
Prompts for Your Reading
1.When you read a history book, do you occasionally feel skeptical about the “facts or factors”? Why or why not?
2.Geyl says, “Behind the fact, behind the goddess History, there is a historian.” How do you understand this statement?
3.A myth is sometimes defined as a traditional fairy story accepted as history. What role or roles does it play, especially in certain social groups or religious circles?
4.Have you read any stories about Buddha? Can you distinguish the facts from the myths in them?
5.How would you explain the notion that a historian’s history will suffer from his being so wrapped up in a myth of his own day?
6.What attitude should a historian take while writing history?
[1] The historian cannot evade his responsibility. To ascertain the bare facts or factors, sometimes a difficult job in all conscience, is only the first stage of his work: if he is to give an intelligible account, if he will to his own satisfaction understand, he must use his material by choosing from it1, ordering it, and interpreting it. In doing so he is bound to introduce an element of subjectivity; that is, he will tamper with or detract from the absolute, unchanging truth.“I shall stick to the fact,”“I shall let the facts speak for themselves” — these wellknown turns of speech are often permissible enough, but they are apt to be as misleading as that other favorite phrase: “History shows.” Behind the fact, behind the goddess History, there is a historian. Clio2 may be in possession of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but to the historian (the young, middle-aged, or old lady or gentleman rummaging among papers in the archive or wring at a desk) she will at best, in exchange for their labor and devotion, vouchsafe a glimpse. Never will she surrender the whole of her treasure. The most that we can hope for is a partial rendering, an approximation, of the real truth about the past.