« Burns Night | Main | Neighbours »
February 02, 2007
Narrative Histories and History's Narrative
I just recently (well, over Christmas) finished two books of "popular" history, or "narrative" history -- A.C. Grayling's Descartes and Tom Holland's Rubicon. The second was interesting, tracing the last years of the Roman Republic up to the crowning of Augustus as Emporer. It was enjoyable because almost entirely 'uncritical': he believes Caesar's telling of the story, or that of Suetonius, or Cato, Cicero, etc. At times it felt as though he was putting together the most interesting bits of the various sources to make the most compelling story, with all the twists and turns of a fast-paced novel. I thought it was brilliantly written, insofar as this goes, and recommend it with that in mind. Grayling's book was much more of a disappointment. I'm not a 17th century scholar, nor a Descartes scholar, but reading this book didn't help me get closer to that. Again, it was a popular history, and I'm not criticising it for its lack of academic precision or depth. I sometimes really like sweeping histories. But this was something else. Grayling is a philosopher by trade, down in London. So I guess I expected something more than what I got. Grayling speaks so much in the 'Enlightenment' mould of telling history: after darkness, light -- after the whole of the philosophical/theological tradition, Descartes and modern science. The book seems to be...
Grayling's ode to a hero who fought the viles of theological obscurantism and ushered in "the dawn" (his words) of modernity. Of course, any theologian or philosopher that differed with Descartes is really only quibbling or ignorant -- people like Blaise Pascal, whose disagreements with Descartes are neatly bypassed as mainly about mathematics (!!), or Voetius who was simply too attached to Aristotle (since the theological issues can't really be the point, or don't make as good a story). I suppose the problem is that I think Descartes was essentially arrogant and wrong, while Grayling thinks he was arrogant and right (even if a little too attached to certain dogmatic ideas).
In any case I find it interesting to think about the narrative of history-telling, and wonder if popular histories have always been this way. Holland isn't as concerned with telling things "as it actually happened", making no assertion that cannot be "proven" from the critical evidence, and so on. And his book is fascinating because of it. Grayling is a bit more concerned, but has a meta-narrative into which Descartes' story fits that is itself non-compelling and so the story he tells feels fatally flawed, like putting spokes on the wrong size tire.
But there it is. I'm almost finished with John Steinbeck's East of Eden, but thought I better put my thoughts of these up before I do that book. Because I know the world cares what I think about what I'm reading.
Josh
Book Reviews | By j and b | 04:31 PM
Comments
Joe, yes (as you know). But, as you also know, that's not all that Pascal said about Descartes or, more broadly, the Cartesian paradigm, if we can call it that.
Posted by: at February 20, 2007 04:28 PM
Isn't true that when Blaise Pascal said, "I cannot forgive Descartes" he was speaking of his mathematics and not his metaphysics?
(Just had to post something on Pascal, since you basically forced me to do so by the reference...got to live up to it, ya know?)
Posted by: Joe at February 20, 2007 03:44 AM
'Herodotus says, "Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all: The conscientious historian will correct these defects."
- Acknowledgments for A Horse's Tale--Mark Twain'
Hmmm. Sounds a little too like modern sensibilities for me.
Posted by: Sister Kari at February 2, 2007 06:58 PM