Why the Latest is not the Greatest
(Written for presentation at a Homeschool Conference, 2013 )
Learning History from books that were popular over a century ago is a delightful experience. Believe it or not, history, at one time, was considered by almost everyone to be a great source of entertainment as well as instruction. People studied it because it was fun and provided great insights into almost every aspect of the world around them, and above all, because many of the characters of history were downright fascinating people.
It is a wonderful experience to learn history from writers who share this old-fashioned view of history, and the surest way to find books written from this traditional viewpoint, is simply to read older books. Although bookstores and libraries are packed with books, it is still difficult to find high-quality, comprehensive history books written for the introductory reader. Most juvenile history books have the look and feel of a magazine, crammed with pictures and factoids; meant to be browsed, not read. Adult history books, on the other hand, are usually so heavy on analysis and commentary, that they are not appealing to the introductory reader. And most modern history textbooks, written by committee, and constantly under revision to include the latest educational fashions, are too depressing to even discuss.
What has happened to the lost art of telling historical tales? Why are some of these older books, written by traditional authors, still able to engage, entertain, and actually teach history, while modern books are so often dull, uncompelling, and riddled with propaganda. There are some specific reasons why, particularly for the introductory reader of history, older books are in general, a better bet than modern books. Some of the reasons are as follows:
The modern mindset loves innovation and novelty. We often think of the modern world as progressing in a positive fashion and always value the latest research and newest ideas. But when relating ancient stories that have been passed on for dozens of generations, innovation is not a plus. The latest theories and interpretations are not welcome additions to traditional history, they are intruders.
Yet the entire purpose of many modern writers of history is often that—to tell old stories from a modern perspective. These innovations are virtually never improvements on the original material, and they, in fact, miss the mark entirely. One of the greatest benefits of studying history is to learn the stories just as they have been told for generations. There is no great value in presenting modern interpretations of ancient events and there is a great deal of mischief in taking minor "neglected" points of history, and blowing their significance all out of proportion.
Young people today are bombarded morning, noon and night with "modern" ideas and fancies and there is little danger of any sentient human being failing to understand the world from a contemporary viewpoint. One of the primary purposes in studying history is to be able to understand past events from outside the modern perspective, and to distinguish between permanent values, and those that are mere fashion. Re-interpreting all of history according to modern ideas destroys the very breadth of perspective that the study of history is capable of giving.
There is an enormous chasm between the way the subject of history was viewed a century ago, and how it is viewed today. Simply put, until the early twentieth century, the study of the history of western culture was the whole enchilada. It was the essence of being an educated person. It was psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, international relations, economics, military science, and feminist-studies, all rolled into one. The fact is, most of these subjects are 20th century inventions that simply didn't exist in their currently exalted form 100 years ago, and to the traditional historian, the division of knowledge into such isolated categories would probably have seemed preposterous.
Nevertheless, academic knowledge has been divided, and sub-divided into dozens of "specialties" and to the modern mindset, this all seems normal. To many modern thinkers, it even seems justifiable. The traditional writers didn't see history as an isolated subject among a smorgasbord of specialized knowledge. They saw themselves as passing on a legacy of inestimable value; a set of keys to unlocking the great mysteries of human nature and civilization. The traditional writers assumed as a starting point that their students were interested in lives and cultures outside of themselves, and that young people had much to learn from their elders. They tell their stories without gimmicks or pandering, never doubting that their material, when well presented, was worthy of their students' interest.
The fact is, modern educators have largely lost confidence in the relevance of any knowledge that doesn't lead immediately to a high-paying job. An obsession with specialization and marketable expertise has infected every level of education from universities down to kindergarten. Yet the value of the study of history has never been, and will never be vocational. What a relief to read history from authors who never harbored the faintest doubt of its value, and considered the passing of historical wisdom an honor and a privilege, rather than a job.
Contemporary writers, who are under great pressure to appeal to distracted modern students by dumbing down their material or pandering to their audience, are at an enormous disadvantage relative to their forefathers when in comes to holding the interest of bright students, who are actually capable of appreciating an engaging story. The modern world is so full of diversions that holding the attention of the average student for more than a few minutes can be a challenge, but too many modern writers have given up entirely on the project.
This truly was not a problem a century ago, and the traditional authors showed far more respect for their audience than modern authors seem to. There has always been a portion of the population that was not academically inclined, but for students of even average ability, learning the stories of history had the potential to be great entertainment in and of itself. Many of these stories were so popular that even people with very little formal education were quite familiar with them. Before being elbowed out of the way by current icons of pop culture, these famous characters of history were the ageless celebrities of western civilization, and as anyone who has studied their stories can tell you, there is more drama, intrigue, treachery, adventure, murder, heroism and of course, sex and violence, in real history than Hollywood could ever dream up.
The traditional writers had the luxury of being able to engage students who were often quite interested in the subject matter instead of having to dumb down everything for students who simply don't recognize the value of learning history. Today one can hardly find a modern juvenile history book that does not rely heavily on pictures. Now pictures, of themselves, are good, but the idea of writing a history book that depends on engaging prose to hold a student's attention is nearly a lost art. The most popular juvenile history books are often almost entirely pictures, with no more than a few paragraph summary of any person or incident. If you try to imagine the story of Cinderella summarized in two paragraphs, along side a picture of the Pumpkin coach and a glass slipper, you'll see what is missing from modern history books. It is the stories themselves.
What small smattering of history is still taught to school children is almost entirely American History. It has been relatively easy for educators to completely dismiss the previous 3000 years of recorded history from the curriculum, but there still lingers a romantic notion that children should know something about American History, since it is, after all, their own country.
Of course learning any history, is better than learning none at all, but there are serious problems with tossing off all of Western civilization and focusing only on the last 200 years. First, the number of interesting action stories and colorful characters of American history represent only a fraction of the available material, and it is not enough to spread out over twelve years. Studying the same fascinating characters year after year, will soon render them dull.
Second, it is impossible to genuinely understand the founders of the American republic without understanding their ideas and worldview, and these were overwhelmingly formed by the study of Ancient History. Every one of the Founding fathers was intimately familiar with all of Greek, Roman, and English History. Studying the life of George Washington without knowing anything about the Ancients is like studying the life of the Pope without knowing anything about Catholicism. It simply cannot be done in any meaningful way.
Thirdly, the great achievement that is America is only clearly visible from the perspective of beyond its realm. Republics have risen and fallen in the past; men have struggled for thousands of years against tyranny, oppression, and want. Students who are only familiar with the activities and rights of the Americans founders, can have no appreciation of how hard won those rights were, or how fragile they remain.
The traditional historians wrote dozens of juvenile histories of Greek, Roman, Persian, Biblical, English and European History, as well as retellings of many of the major myths, epics, and legends of antiquity. Most of these histories are story based rather than analytical, and there are many selections from each period at reading levels from elementary to high school. A century ago, any school child was expected to be familiar with all of these time periods, and any college-bound student was expected to be intimately familiar with them. Colleges often try to make up for the glaring deficit in its incoming students by offering a "Western Civilization" crash course, which requires freshmen to whiz through 2500 years in 6 months, but this is a poor substitute for the unhurried and fascinating stroll through the past that was routinely offered to our great-grandparents.
It is utterly insincere for modern educators to speak a word of criticism of the traditional writers for "neglecting" non-Western cultures, when they themselves fail so miserably to transmit the basics of Western Civilization. It is hypocrisy of mind-boggling proportion.
One has to wonder, what exactly are American students taught, if not history, for twelve years. One perennial favorite is "current events". Yet it is an open question whether the study of contemporary politics and current events is even appropriate for young people who are not yet grounded with a solid understanding of history. Contemporary history is not actually history at all—there is no way to objectively present the relative importance of events that are still working themselves out. Yet impressionable students, who haven't the faintest idea of the hundreds of historical lessons that are fixed and well understood, are often asked to deliberate on topics that are still open-issues, and are frequently propagandized with one side of complicated political issues.
The fact that recent history and "current events" dominates so much of modern education, springs from a self-absorbed belief that everything relevant to a student must be something that he or she is immediately and materially effected by. This is the justification for changing a student's focus from the timeless panorama of history to the petty political squabbles of the hour. Alas, one of the great benefits of the study of history—the ability of a student to be engaged and interested in persons and events outside of himself—is again completely undermined. Instead of being challenged to seek wisdom outside themselves, in the experience of others, students are flattered that their personal feelings about current events, no matter how ignorant, are relevant and worthy of consideration. As Tacitus would say: "Pessimum genus inimicorum laudantes" ("Flatterers are the worst type of enemies".)
Blessedly, the study of the traditional historians completely obviates the problem. They all died a hundred years ago, and never have a thing to say about current events, unless perchance, a lesson from yester-year still echoes its relevance through the ages.
Traditional writers of juvenile history write true stories as they would fairy tales—by developing the characters, dwelling on the most interesting events, and framing a morale of some kind, when appropriate. Sometimes there is a clear conclusion—sometimes all is for naught. The story might be funny or tragic, the central character might be a dupe, a hero, or a villain; sometimes luck plays an enormous factor, and sometimes ability. There are all types of stories, all types of characters, and all types of endings. Some have obvious morals and some are merely ironic; some are horrific or tragic and others are pure entertainment. But in no case, do traditional writers of juvenile history put the cart before the horse, by putting their conclusions front and center, and using stories only to buttress the grand analysis.
Unfortunately, there are modern writers of history, who believe that history should teach a particular lesson, and are quick to distill stories of history to reach a particular conclusion. Unfortunately, in this distillation process, the entire flavor of the stories is often lost. Even worse, the breadth and complexity of history; the fact that there are so many conflicting lessons, and ambiguous results; is obscured. And even worse yet, a modern historian's attempt to lead impressionable minds through some prescribed exercises in "critical thinking" risks being relatively dull, especially compared to the stories themselves.
Educators need some reassurance that their students are learning from the history readings they assign, but preserving a students interest in a subject is just as important—probably more important—than making sure he "gets the point". The fact is, a well-written story about a compelling subject will make an impression, even if a student is unable to understand the full significance of the story, or unable to articulate exactly what he got from it. Coming to understand the greater significance of historical events is a worthy goal, but sometimes, just getting the events and characters on a young person's radar—that is, helping him to develop a basic familiarity, and interest in the characters, is enough. Most students will select a great story over a good lesson any day, and these preferences were well understood by traditional writers of juvenile history.
After all, the real wisdom that can be derived from studying history is not confinable to a set of lessons. It is precisely an appreciation of the breadth and variety of human aspirations that is the wisdom itself. The wisdom that history teaches is best gained by breadth; and breadth takes time and interest. There is no "getting right to the point" in history—it is a panorama, not a point.