Excellent book, 18 Nov 2008
This books discusses history from a philosophical standpoint and defends it as a science.

A wide range of topics is discussed from whether history (in the sense of changes throughout time) can be explained by means of grand narratives and theories on the one hand and the nuts and bolts of carrying out research in archives and other sources of information on the other.

Great reading for history students and perhaps others e.g. philosophers.

A Strong Defence, 21 Oct 2008
The dreary trite pseudo-`insights' of post-modernism reappear again; this time with their feeble attempts to turn history into just another `text'. However, as Evans so splendidly puts it in this, his robust defence of history:

"Auschwitz was not a discourse. It trivializes mass murder to see it as a text. The gas chambers were not a piece of rhetoric. Auschwitz was indeed inherently a tragedy and connate be seen as either a comedy or a farce. And if this is true of Auschwitz, then it must be true at least to some degree of other past happenings, events, institutions, people as well."

History as Evans argues has a long established methodology, which is itself constantly under scrutiny - as this book itself demonstrates by its own existence and its long line of antecedents - for establishing the veracity of historical events and the value of historian's attempts at explaining the relationship between those events.

As with all other areas where postmodernism has tried to elbow itself into, there is little - if anything - that postmodernism itself can add to history, or history's self-examination that is not trite, superficial or painstakingly obvious before the weight of postmodernism's own contradictions smother it's pseudo-profundities and irrelevances.

Postmodernism et al, of course, grew out of the failure and collapse of Marxism and all the theories and suppositions which had grown from it. Marx's own idea that history had a purpose (or - at least - discoverable laws) and direction was - of course - destroyed by Popper (among others), and - most tellingly - by the course of history itself.

History does not make the claims that postmodernists accuse it of - of being the absolute truth about past events - and so their destruction of this strawman is not the masterstroke they seem to believe. Historians, and those of us who read their work, know that there is always more to the story than we get from any history book. History is not a science in the strong sense of that word, but it does have a rigorous methodology, enough to make both historians and their readers feel confident that they do get as close to truth as they can within the limitations of history itself. For example, historians are very aware that historical documents are written by fallible human beings, often for a variety of reasons conscious or unconscious and take into account many other factors like the context of the document, the nature of the document and so on. So the postmodernist claim that a document, or `text' as they like to call it, can no longer be regarded as having one fixed meaning which is bestowed upon it by its author at the time of writing. As Evans says, though `it is doubtful whether anyone, in fact, has ever believed that meaning can be fixed in this way.' He also demonstrates the falsehood of po-mo's claim about the arbitrariness of language, demonstrating that language evolves through contact and interaction with reality, rather than just being about itself. In fact, Evens states `...the postmodernist concentration on words diverts attention away from real suffering and oppression and towards the kinds of secondary intellectual issues that matter in the physically comfortable world of academia.'

Of course, a great deal of po-mo - pace Foucault - is rather simplistically obsessed with what they like to see as power relationships between various actors within societies, but, Evans points out, this could be more a case of the po-mo academics themselves trying to claw back some power and influence for themselves. Hence, with postmodernism's disdain for truth and reality:

"The past no longer has the power to confine the researcher within the bounds of facts. Historians and critics are now omnipotent. To underline this, the postmodernists have developed a new level of specialized language and jargon, borrowed largely from literary theory, which has rendered their work opaque to anyone except other postmodernists. The enterprise thus seems not only self-regarding but, ironically in view of its criticism of hierarchy and prioritization, elitist as well. Its narcissism and elitism can both be seen as compensatory mechanisms for the loss of real power, income and status suffered by its academic practitioners over the past ten to fifteen years."

Constantly, throughout this book Evans - like so many other critics of postmodernism in many other areas beyond history - demonstrates that po-mo must always fail because of its inherent contradictions. For example, if all theories are equally valid, then why give any special credence to po-mo, rather than more realist theories? If all knowledge is relative, then why bother believing in po-mo and its practitioners? Why `privilege' postmodernists over anyone else?

Evans, does in the end allow po-mo some limited room in the practice of historical scholarship, but only in terms of the way it makes historians more aware of the limitations of their approach and areas of study, but that is what a good historian should do anyway, it seems.

Anyway, postmodernism is well on the wane now, in areas beyond history. So soon, books like this will become objects of historical curiosity only, like books on or about so many of the ideologies that came promising so much and - in the end - delivered little or nothing of any lasting worth. Just like so many theories, ideologies and other `grand narrative', po-mo became quasi-religious and ended up talking only to itself about itself within constraints that it engendered itself which kept out so much of the awkward reality that cannot be held within those constraints without the whole edifice crumbling to dust.

In Defence of History is a very good, readable, book that ought to be read by more than just historians and those with an interest in how history comes about. It is a strong defence of academic rigour and a warning that, without that rigour -which postmodernism tried so hard to undermine - if the academic, or indeed any, mind is left too open, then anything could crawl in.



The day I fell in love with Science..., 18 Aug 2007
The day I fell in love with Science was a funny day, weird in that I don't remember it. We had an on-off relationship going on for a while, for so long I don't remember. And we had a child eventually. We called her Time. Time went off and did her own thing and me and Science split up, not before he unfortunately become impotent somewhat and we had another two kids with uncertain patronage who we called Richard and Richard (Dawkins and Evans). Then I met another woman, Art who I fell head over heels for. She had everything: beauty, passion, communication skills to die for. You name it. I was still on speaking terms with Science. And he'd rather miraculously regained his fertility. Generously, (perhaps he too was bowled over by the beauty of Art) decided to donate his sperm. And we had four more kids. Born not long after the birth of Time. Love, Postmodernism, Now and Nextweek. Science had buggared off to have an affair with Money so me and Art brought them up.

And my name ?... History.

On a more serious note, Evan's book is a masterpiece. I don't agree with his lambasting of postmodernism on the whole, and rather than being a defence of history it's more of an attack on postmodernism. History, in my opinion, doesn't need defending, especially not from postmodernists, who seem to have added a lot to it, as Evans indeed argues particularly in the last chapter. But the book is so well written it's an absolute classic. He presents the themes extremely clearly, summarizing all the main historical theories and players so well. I personally think he starts tying himself in knots when attempting to defend `facts', `events', `morality' and `objectivity'. It's correct for historians to now, as we do under the influence of postmodernism, say what our influences are or could be. To suggest that we're in some sort of bubble, immune from the present day is preposterous. For example I'm about to start historical research into age discrimination and on page 156 Evans says `In the end, therefore, time does pass, a fact we experience only too painfully in the process of human ageing' - surely an ageist comment? Evans spends quite an amount of time criticizing other historians in terms of getting their `facts' wrong - eg Carr and Paul de Man. And he says `Where do we draw the line between all this and legitimate reinterpretation?' Well who says what is `legitimate'? By trying to define facts, events, morality and objectivity Evans is himself taking on this legitimizing role. And perhaps he's up to the job (especially if he acknowledges that ageist comment in the next edition!). My view is that we are actually in the postmodern era. So we're all postmodernists now - and I believe Evans has proved this in the strength, power and persuasion of his writing, as he himself says: `One thing which the postmodernist treatment of history as a form of literature has done is to reinstate good writing as legitimate historical practice'.


A great defence of history and a great defense of the truth., 04 Mar 2007
Somehow postmodernist theory has gotten into the main stream of academia. Their grand, intricate, convoluted theories, that when applied, actually don't work, are being preached by English Literature teachers and cultural and critical theorist to young eager minds in university who unfortunately don't know any better and soak up the information. These postmodernist theorists are creating an atmosphere of nihilism, where young people have stopped entering debates, stopped searching for the truth, and have actually stopped believing that there is a truth. The young now, even more so, retreat into their over stimulating computer games and televisions and forget about what is real, and about truth altogether. This seems to be fine with some people, and fine with the postmodernist theorist, however some, like Richard Evans, believe that there are serious problems with the above type of passivity. There are serious consequences to postmodernist ideology, in which it gives a license to anybody who wants to suppress, distort, or cover up the past, and thus the truth.

Some postmodernist claim that there is no real difference between history and fiction. It is true not every line in a historian's text is fact. There are only so many facts left behind by history, and for the rest, the historians have to fill in the gaps with their best judgment. However historians cannot simply impose any meaning they want to either, and just come up with fiction. They are limited by the facts and by the words a document contains, words which are not, contrary to what postmodernists claim, capable of an infinity of meaning. The historian Richard Evans states that doing historical research is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where some pieces have been destroyed. However if the pieces you do have `only fit together to produce a steam-engine [...] it is no good trying to put them together to make a suburban garden: it simply will not work.' So it is correct that not everything in a historian's text is absolutely true and objective, however there are objective facts and truths involved. Historians then are not always providing the absolute truth, and most of them would not claim to, but altogether, are providing the probable truth, in which they have done their best to establish by following the rigorous rules of evidence.

Richard Evans book In Defense Of History brilliantly reasons out and destroys most of these absurd postmodernist claims, which really should never have got to the stage of where millions of university students are learning in great detail their theories, as if they actually were correct and have high standing. What should be happening is that great books like Richard Evans In Defense of History should be mandatory reading for university courses and studied in great detail, and postmodernist theories only brushed upon. That would create a better environment and would be altogether better for humanity.

There is a truth, a reality, and it can be, and there needs to be, an attempt to discover it. If revisionist historians have their way then present and future generations will suffer, for people will not get the truth and will not be able to learn from it. And as history has taught us, if you don't learn from the past, then you are in danger of repeating it.



A brain-saving study, 23 Jan 2005
I have re-read this book several times while in education, and it has restored my enthusiasm for academic work at times when the prevalence of post-structuralist theory in universities has left me thoroughly despondent. Evans is an acute critic, generous as well as exacting, and his writing is entertaining even when covering the most arcane philosophy. This book successfully unites a keen awareness of the theory of history with a pragmatic appreciation of its practice. Members of any discipline in which reading and writing are important (I come from an English literature background) can learn a lot, and take a lot of reassurance, from this rebuttal to relativism. Incidentally, the final chapter of the revised edition, in which Evans takes on his unfriendly critics, is one of the funniest shows of debunking available. A splendid book.

Excellent book, 18 Nov 2008
This books discusses history from a philosophical standpoint and defends it as a science.

A wide range of topics is discussed from whether history (in the sense of changes throughout time) can be explained by means of grand narratives and theories on the one hand and the nuts and bolts of carrying out research in archives and other sources of information on the other.

Great reading for history students and perhaps others e.g. philosophers.

A Strong Defence, 21 Oct 2008
The dreary trite pseudo-`insights' of post-modernism reappear again; this time with their feeble attempts to turn history into just another `text'. However, as Evans so splendidly puts it in this, his robust defence of history:

"Auschwitz was not a discourse. It trivializes mass murder to see it as a text. The gas chambers were not a piece of rhetoric. Auschwitz was indeed inherently a tragedy and connate be seen as either a comedy or a farce. And if this is true of Auschwitz, then it must be true at least to some degree of other past happenings, events, institutions, people as well."

History as Evans argues has a long established methodology, which is itself constantly under scrutiny - as this book itself demonstrates by its own existence and its long line of antecedents - for establishing the veracity of historical events and the value of historian's attempts at explaining the relationship between those events.

As with all other areas where postmodernism has tried to elbow itself into, there is little - if anything - that postmodernism itself can add to history, or history's self-examination that is not trite, superficial or painstakingly obvious before the weight of postmodernism's own contradictions smother it's pseudo-profundities and irrelevances.

Postmodernism et al, of course, grew out of the failure and collapse of Marxism and all the theories and suppositions which had grown from it. Marx's own idea that history had a purpose (or - at least - discoverable laws) and direction was - of course - destroyed by Popper (among others), and - most tellingly - by the course of history itself.

History does not make the claims that postmodernists accuse it of - of being the absolute truth about past events - and so their destruction of this strawman is not the masterstroke they seem to believe. Historians, and those of us who read their work, know that there is always more to the story than we get from any history book. History is not a science in the strong sense of that word, but it does have a rigorous methodology, enough to make both historians and their readers feel confident that they do get as close to truth as they can within the limitations of history itself. For example, historians are very aware that historical documents are written by fallible human beings, often for a variety of reasons conscious or unconscious and take into account many other factors like the context of the document, the nature of the document and so on. So the postmodernist claim that a document, or `text' as they like to call it, can no longer be regarded as having one fixed meaning which is bestowed upon it by its author at the time of writing. As Evans says, though `it is doubtful whether anyone, in fact, has ever believed that meaning can be fixed in this way.' He also demonstrates the falsehood of po-mo's claim about the arbitrariness of language, demonstrating that language evolves through contact and interaction with reality, rather than just being about itself. In fact, Evens states `...the postmodernist concentration on words diverts attention away from real suffering and oppression and towards the kinds of secondary intellectual issues that matter in the physically comfortable world of academia.'

Of course, a great deal of po-mo - pace Foucault - is rather simplistically obsessed with what they like to see as power relationships between various actors within societies, but, Evans points out, this could be more a case of the po-mo academics themselves trying to claw back some power and influence for themselves. Hence, with postmodernism's disdain for truth and reality:

"The past no longer has the power to confine the researcher within the bounds of facts. Historians and critics are now omnipotent. To underline this, the postmodernists have developed a new level of specialized language and jargon, borrowed largely from literary theory, which has rendered their work opaque to anyone except other postmodernists. The enterprise thus seems not only self-regarding but, ironically in view of its criticism of hierarchy and prioritization, elitist as well. Its narcissism and elitism can both be seen as compensatory mechanisms for the loss of real power, income and status suffered by its academic practitioners over the past ten to fifteen years."

Constantly, throughout this book Evans - like so many other critics of postmodernism in many other areas beyond history - demonstrates that po-mo must always fail because of its inherent contradictions. For example, if all theories are equally valid, then why give any special credence to po-mo, rather than more realist theories? If all knowledge is relative, then why bother believing in po-mo and its practitioners? Why `privilege' postmodernists over anyone else?

Evans, does in the end allow po-mo some limited room in the practice of historical scholarship, but only in terms of the way it makes historians more aware of the limitations of their approach and areas of study, but that is what a good historian should do anyway, it seems.

Anyway, postmodernism is well on the wane now, in areas beyond history. So soon, books like this will become objects of historical curiosity only, like books on or about so many of the ideologies that came promising so much and - in the end - delivered little or nothing of any lasting worth. Just like so many theories, ideologies and other `grand narrative', po-mo became quasi-religious and ended up talking only to itself about itself within constraints that it engendered itself which kept out so much of the awkward reality that cannot be held within those constraints without the whole edifice crumbling to dust.

In Defence of History is a very good, readable, book that ought to be read by more than just historians and those with an interest in how history comes about. It is a strong defence of academic rigour and a warning that, without that rigour -which postmodernism tried so hard to undermine - if the academic, or indeed any, mind is left too open, then anything could crawl in.



The day I fell in love with Science..., 18 Aug 2007
The day I fell in love with Science was a funny day, weird in that I don't remember it. We had an on-off relationship going on for a while, for so long I don't remember. And we had a child eventually. We called her Time. Time went off and did her own thing and me and Science split up, not before he unfortunately become impotent somewhat and we had another two kids with uncertain patronage who we called Richard and Richard (Dawkins and Evans). Then I met another woman, Art who I fell head over heels for. She had everything: beauty, passion, communication skills to die for. You name it. I was still on speaking terms with Science. And he'd rather miraculously regained his fertility. Generously, (perhaps he too was bowled over by the beauty of Art) decided to donate his sperm. And we had four more kids. Born not long after the birth of Time. Love, Postmodernism, Now and Nextweek. Science had buggared off to have an affair with Money so me and Art brought them up.

And my name ?... History.

On a more serious note, Evan's book is a masterpiece. I don't agree with his lambasting of postmodernism on the whole, and rather than being a defence of history it's more of an attack on postmodernism. History, in my opinion, doesn't need defending, especially not from postmodernists, who seem to have added a lot to it, as Evans indeed argues particularly in the last chapter. But the book is so well written it's an absolute classic. He presents the themes extremely clearly, summarizing all the main historical theories and players so well. I personally think he starts tying himself in knots when attempting to defend `facts', `events', `morality' and `objectivity'. It's correct for historians to now, as we do under the influence of postmodernism, say what our influences are or could be. To suggest that we're in some sort of bubble, immune from the present day is preposterous. For example I'm about to start historical research into age discrimination and on page 156 Evans says `In the end, therefore, time does pass, a fact we experience only too painfully in the process of human ageing' - surely an ageist comment? Evans spends quite an amount of time criticizing other historians in terms of getting their `facts' wrong - eg Carr and Paul de Man. And he says `Where do we draw the line between all this and legitimate reinterpretation?' Well who says what is `legitimate'? By trying to define facts, events, morality and objectivity Evans is himself taking on this legitimizing role. And perhaps he's up to the job (especially if he acknowledges that ageist comment in the next edition!). My view is that we are actually in the postmodern era. So we're all postmodernists now - and I believe Evans has proved this in the strength, power and persuasion of his writing, as he himself says: `One thing which the postmodernist treatment of history as a form of literature has done is to reinstate good writing as legitimate historical practice'.


A great defence of history and a great defense of the truth., 04 Mar 2007
Somehow postmodernist theory has gotten into the main stream of academia. Their grand, intricate, convoluted theories, that when applied, actually don't work, are being preached by English Literature teachers and cultural and critical theorist to young eager minds in university who unfortunately don't know any better and soak up the information. These postmodernist theorists are creating an atmosphere of nihilism, where young people have stopped entering debates, stopped searching for the truth, and have actually stopped believing that there is a truth. The young now, even more so, retreat into their over stimulating computer games and televisions and forget about what is real, and about truth altogether. This seems to be fine with some people, and fine with the postmodernist theorist, however some, like Richard Evans, believe that there are serious problems with the above type of passivity. There are serious consequences to postmodernist ideology, in which it gives a license to anybody who wants to suppress, distort, or cover up the past, and thus the truth.

Some postmodernist claim that there is no real difference between history and fiction. It is true not every line in a historian's text is fact. There are only so many facts left behind by history, and for the rest, the historians have to fill in the gaps with their best judgment. However historians cannot simply impose any meaning they want to either, and just come up with fiction. They are limited by the facts and by the words a document contains, words which are not, contrary to what postmodernists claim, capable of an infinity of meaning. The historian Richard Evans states that doing historical research is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where some pieces have been destroyed. However if the pieces you do have `only fit together to produce a steam-engine [...] it is no good trying to put them together to make a suburban garden: it simply will not work.' So it is correct that not everything in a historian's text is absolutely true and objective, however there are objective facts and truths involved. Historians then are not always providing the absolute truth, and most of them would not claim to, but altogether, are providing the probable truth, in which they have done their best to establish by following the rigorous rules of evidence.

Richard Evans book In Defense Of History brilliantly reasons out and destroys most of these absurd postmodernist claims, which really should never have got to the stage of where millions of university students are learning in great detail their theories, as if they actually were correct and have high standing. What should be happening is that great books like Richard Evans In Defense of History should be mandatory reading for university courses and studied in great detail, and postmodernist theories only brushed upon. That would create a better environment and would be altogether better for humanity.

There is a truth, a reality, and it can be, and there needs to be, an attempt to discover it. If revisionist historians have their way then present and future generations will suffer, for people will not get the truth and will not be able to learn from it. And as history has taught us, if you don't learn from the past, then you are in danger of repeating it.



A brain-saving study, 23 Jan 2005
I have re-read this book several times while in education, and it has restored my enthusiasm for academic work at times when the prevalence of post-structuralist theory in universities has left me thoroughly despondent. Evans is an acute critic, generous as well as exacting, and his writing is entertaining even when covering the most arcane philosophy. This book successfully unites a keen awareness of the theory of history with a pragmatic appreciation of its practice. Members of any discipline in which reading and writing are important (I come from an English literature background) can learn a lot, and take a lot of reassurance, from this rebuttal to relativism. Incidentally, the final chapter of the revised edition, in which Evans takes on his unfriendly critics, is one of the funniest shows of debunking available. A splendid book.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........., 04 Nov 2008
Overly complex, arrogant and long-winded - I had to read this book for my degree, and hated every second of it.

E.H Carr, a great thinker, 07 Aug 2008
EH Carr was a great thinker, and in this series of lectures published in What Is History he tackles deep philosophical questions with a wit and intelligent investigation that is difficult to dislike. A bit wordy in places, and a bit mind boggling in others, What Is History is still thought provoking and interesting, just as it should be.

A classic of Historiography, 13 Aug 2007
I have always been interested in the theoretical side of history and this remains one of the best books to start with. It has been a few years since I was at University, but this used to be a set text for first year undergraduates, in order to give them some understanding of the 'history of history'. Carr's text is highly readable and his analogies very useful - ie. thinking of historians as merely individuals in a very long, winding procession of people through a mountainous valley - looking back at events going on further back in the queue, their views differing according to whereabouts in the procession he or she was at the time. Still a great starting point for an often complex subject.

What is History? Good question, 22 Oct 2003
There are many definitions of what History is, and what it means for different sections of society at different times. E.H. Carr's primary argument is that the interpretation of history from certain historians is dependent upon their position in society, and indeed are formulated by society's view of the period. One historian writing in the 1950's may have a totally different interpretation of events that, say, a present day historical writer.

This book is a fascinating account of historical arguments through time, and is really useful if, like me, you are studying for a History degree at University!!!

Compulsive reading but (unnecessarily?) complex in places, 20 Mar 2002
This collection of essays by the late E. H. Carr is particularly interesting to any student of historiography, or indeed the general reader. It clearly outlines his thoughts on the subject of the theory and philosophy of history, and he illustrates his ideas well, bedding down abstract concepts with concrete examples. The only criticism, aside from objections to his theories, is that Carr occasionally leaves the more earth-bound reader behind. So gymnastic is his intellectual ability that he makes leaps from abstract trapeze to abstract trapeze, leaving the reader lost and blank, forcing them to read and re-read. Aside from that this is an excellent collection, complemented well by the discussion about Carr's notes towards a second edition. Should be read in conjunction with I. Berlin's essays on history (to be found in The Proper Study of Mankind), which Carr attacks throughout.

Excellent book, 18 Nov 2008
This books discusses history from a philosophical standpoint and defends it as a science.

A wide range of topics is discussed from whether history (in the sense of changes throughout time) can be explained by means of grand narratives and theories on the one hand and the nuts and bolts of carrying out research in archives and other sources of information on the other.

Great reading for history students and perhaps others e.g. philosophers.

A Strong Defence, 21 Oct 2008
The dreary trite pseudo-`insights' of post-modernism reappear again; this time with their feeble attempts to turn history into just another `text'. However, as Evans so splendidly puts it in this, his robust defence of history:

"Auschwitz was not a discourse. It trivializes mass murder to see it as a text. The gas chambers were not a piece of rhetoric. Auschwitz was indeed inherently a tragedy and connate be seen as either a comedy or a farce. And if this is true of Auschwitz, then it must be true at least to some degree of other past happenings, events, institutions, people as well."

History as Evans argues has a long established methodology, which is itself constantly under scrutiny - as this book itself demonstrates by its own existence and its long line of antecedents - for establishing the veracity of historical events and the value of historian's attempts at explaining the relationship between those events.

As with all other areas where postmodernism has tried to elbow itself into, there is little - if anything - that postmodernism itself can add to history, or history's self-examination that is not trite, superficial or painstakingly obvious before the weight of postmodernism's own contradictions smother it's pseudo-profundities and irrelevances.

Postmodernism et al, of course, grew out of the failure and collapse of Marxism and all the theories and suppositions which had grown from it. Marx's own idea that history had a purpose (or - at least - discoverable laws) and direction was - of course - destroyed by Popper (among others), and - most tellingly - by the course of history itself.

History does not make the claims that postmodernists accuse it of - of being the absolute truth about past events - and so their destruction of this strawman is not the masterstroke they seem to believe. Historians, and those of us who read their work, know that there is always more to the story than we get from any history book. History is not a science in the strong sense of that word, but it does have a rigorous methodology, enough to make both historians and their readers feel confident that they do get as close to truth as they can within the limitations of history itself. For example, historians are very aware that historical documents are written by fallible human beings, often for a variety of reasons conscious or unconscious and take into account many other factors like the context of the document, the nature of the document and so on. So the postmodernist claim that a document, or `text' as they like to call it, can no longer be regarded as having one fixed meaning which is bestowed upon it by its author at the time of writing. As Evans says, though `it is doubtful whether anyone, in fact, has ever believed that meaning can be fixed in this way.' He also demonstrates the falsehood of po-mo's claim about the arbitrariness of language, demonstrating that language evolves through contact and interaction with reality, rather than just being about itself. In fact, Evens states `...the postmodernist concentration on words diverts attention away from real suffering and oppression and towards the kinds of secondary intellectual issues that matter in the physically comfortable world of academia.'

Of course, a great deal of po-mo - pace Foucault - is rather simplistically obsessed with what they like to see as power relationships between various actors within societies, but, Evans points out, this could be more a case of the po-mo academics themselves trying to claw back some power and influence for themselves. Hence, with postmodernism's disdain for truth and reality:

"The past no longer has the power to confine the researcher within the bounds of facts. Historians and critics are now omnipotent. To underline this, the postmodernists have developed a new level of specialized language and jargon, borrowed largely from literary theory, which has rendered their work opaque to anyone except other postmodernists. The enterprise thus seems not only self-regarding but, ironically in view of its criticism of hierarchy and prioritization, elitist as well. Its narcissism and elitism can both be seen as compensatory mechanisms for the loss of real power, income and status suffered by its academic practitioners over the past ten to fifteen years."

Constantly, throughout this book Evans - like so many other critics of postmodernism in many other areas beyond history - demonstrates that po-mo must always fail because of its inherent contradictions. For example, if all theories are equally valid, then why give any special credence to po-mo, rather than more realist theories? If all knowledge is relative, then why bother believing in po-mo and its practitioners? Why `privilege' postmodernists over anyone else?

Evans, does in the end allow po-mo some limited room in the practice of historical scholarship, but only in terms of the way it makes historians more aware of the limitations of their approach and areas of study, but that is what a good historian should do anyway, it seems.

Anyway, postmodernism is well on the wane now, in areas beyond history. So soon, books like this will become objects of historical curiosity only, like books on or about so many of the ideologies that came promising so much and - in the end - delivered little or nothing of any lasting worth. Just like so many theories, ideologies and other `grand narrative', po-mo became quasi-religious and ended up talking only to itself about itself within constraints that it engendered itself which kept out so much of the awkward reality that cannot be held within those constraints without the whole edifice crumbling to dust.

In Defence of History is a very good, readable, book that ought to be read by more than just historians and those with an interest in how history comes about. It is a strong defence of academic rigour and a warning that, without that rigour -which postmodernism tried so hard to undermine - if the academic, or indeed any, mind is left too open, then anything could crawl in.



The day I fell in love with Science..., 18 Aug 2007
The day I fell in love with Science was a funny day, weird in that I don't remember it. We had an on-off relationship going on for a while, for so long I don't remember. And we had a child eventually. We called her Time. Time went off and did her own thing and me and Science split up, not before he unfortunately become impotent somewhat and we had another two kids with uncertain patronage who we called Richard and Richard (Dawkins and Evans). Then I met another woman, Art who I fell head over heels for. She had everything: beauty, passion, communication skills to die for. You name it. I was still on speaking terms with Science. And he'd rather miraculously regained his fertility. Generously, (perhaps he too was bowled over by the beauty of Art) decided to donate his sperm. And we had four more kids. Born not long after the birth of Time. Love, Postmodernism, Now and Nextweek. Science had buggared off to have an affair with Money so me and Art brought them up.

And my name ?... History.

On a more serious note, Evan's book is a masterpiece. I don't agree with his lambasting of postmodernism on the whole, and rather than being a defence of history it's more of an attack on postmodernism. History, in my opinion, doesn't need defending, especially not from postmodernists, who seem to have added a lot to it, as Evans indeed argues particularly in the last chapter. But the book is so well written it's an absolute classic. He presents the themes extremely clearly, summarizing all the main historical theories and players so well. I personally think he starts tying himself in knots when attempting to defend `facts', `events', `morality' and `objectivity'. It's correct for historians to now, as we do under the influence of postmodernism, say what our influences are or could be. To suggest that we're in some sort of bubble, immune from the present day is preposterous. For example I'm about to start historical research into age discrimination and on page 156 Evans says `In the end, therefore, time does pass, a fact we experience only too painfully in the process of human ageing' - surely an ageist comment? Evans spends quite an amount of time criticizing other historians in terms of getting their `facts' wrong - eg Carr and Paul de Man. And he says `Where do we draw the line between all this and legitimate reinterpretation?' Well who says what is `legitimate'? By trying to define facts, events, morality and objectivity Evans is himself taking on this legitimizing role. And perhaps he's up to the job (especially if he acknowledges that ageist comment in the next edition!). My view is that we are actually in the postmodern era. So we're all postmodernists now - and I believe Evans has proved this in the strength, power and persuasion of his writing, as he himself says: `One thing which the postmodernist treatment of history as a form of literature has done is to reinstate good writing as legitimate historical practice'.


A great defence of history and a great defense of the truth., 04 Mar 2007
Somehow postmodernist theory has gotten into the main stream of academia. Their grand, intricate, convoluted theories, that when applied, actually don't work, are being preached by English Literature teachers and cultural and critical theorist to young eager minds in university who unfortunately don't know any better and soak up the information. These postmodernist theorists are creating an atmosphere of nihilism, where young people have stopped entering debates, stopped searching for the truth, and have actually stopped believing that there is a truth. The young now, even more so, retreat into their over stimulating computer games and televisions and forget about what is real, and about truth altogether. This seems to be fine with some people, and fine with the postmodernist theorist, however some, like Richard Evans, believe that there are serious problems with the above type of passivity. There are serious consequences to postmodernist ideology, in which it gives a license to anybody who wants to suppress, distort, or cover up the past, and thus the truth.

Some postmodernist claim that there is no real difference between history and fiction. It is true not every line in a historian's text is fact. There are only so many facts left behind by history, and for the rest, the historians have to fill in the gaps with their best judgment. However historians cannot simply impose any meaning they want to either, and just come up with fiction. They are limited by the facts and by the words a document contains, words which are not, contrary to what postmodernists claim, capable of an infinity of meaning. The historian Richard Evans states that doing historical research is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where some pieces have been destroyed. However if the pieces you do have `only fit together to produce a steam-engine [...] it is no good trying to put them together to make a suburban garden: it simply will not work.' So it is correct that not everything in a historian's text is absolutely true and objective, however there are objective facts and truths involved. Historians then are not always providing the absolute truth, and most of them would not claim to, but altogether, are providing the probable truth, in which they have done their best to establish by following the rigorous rules of evidence.

Richard Evans book In Defense Of History brilliantly reasons out and destroys most of these absurd postmodernist claims, which really should never have got to the stage of where millions of university students are learning in great detail their theories, as if they actually were correct and have high standing. What should be happening is that great books like Richard Evans In Defense of History should be mandatory reading for university courses and studied in great detail, and postmodernist theories only brushed upon. That would create a better environment and would be altogether better for humanity.

There is a truth, a reality, and it can be, and there needs to be, an attempt to discover it. If revisionist historians have their way then present and future generations will suffer, for people will not get the truth and will not be able to learn from it. And as history has taught us, if you don't learn from the past, then you are in danger of repeating it.



A brain-saving study, 23 Jan 2005
I have re-read this book several times while in education, and it has restored my enthusiasm for academic work at times when the prevalence of post-structuralist theory in universities has left me thoroughly despondent. Evans is an acute critic, generous as well as exacting, and his writing is entertaining even when covering the most arcane philosophy. This book successfully unites a keen awareness of the theory of history with a pragmatic appreciation of its practice. Members of any discipline in which reading and writing are important (I come from an English literature background) can learn a lot, and take a lot of reassurance, from this rebuttal to relativism. Incidentally, the final chapter of the revised edition, in which Evans takes on his unfriendly critics, is one of the funniest shows of debunking available. A splendid book.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........., 04 Nov 2008
Overly complex, arrogant and long-winded - I had to read this book for my degree, and hated every second of it.

E.H Carr, a great thinker, 07 Aug 2008
EH Carr was a great thinker, and in this series of lectures published in What Is History he tackles deep philosophical questions with a wit and intelligent investigation that is difficult to dislike. A bit wordy in places, and a bit mind boggling in others, What Is History is still thought provoking and interesting, just as it should be.

A classic of Historiography, 13 Aug 2007
I have always been interested in the theoretical side of history and this remains one of the best books to start with. It has been a few years since I was at University, but this used to be a set text for first year undergraduates, in order to give them some understanding of the 'history of history'. Carr's text is highly readable and his analogies very useful - ie. thinking of historians as merely individuals in a very long, winding procession of people through a mountainous valley - looking back at events going on further back in the queue, their views differing according to whereabouts in the procession he or she was at the time. Still a great starting point for an often complex subject.

What is History? Good question, 22 Oct 2003
There are many definitions of what History is, and what it means for different sections of society at different times. E.H. Carr's primary argument is that the interpretation of history from certain historians is dependent upon their position in society, and indeed are formulated by society's view of the period. One historian writing in the 1950's may have a totally different interpretation of events that, say, a present day historical writer.

This book is a fascinating account of historical arguments through time, and is really useful if, like me, you are studying for a History degree at University!!!

Compulsive reading but (unnecessarily?) complex in places, 20 Mar 2002
This collection of essays by the late E. H. Carr is particularly interesting to any student of historiography, or indeed the general reader. It clearly outlines his thoughts on the subject of the theory and philosophy of history, and he illustrates his ideas well, bedding down abstract concepts with concrete examples. The only criticism, aside from objections to his theories, is that Carr occasionally leaves the more earth-bound reader behind. So gymnastic is his intellectual ability that he makes leaps from abstract trapeze to abstract trapeze, leaving the reader lost and blank, forcing them to read and re-read. Aside from that this is an excellent collection, complemented well by the discussion about Carr's notes towards a second edition. Should be read in conjunction with I. Berlin's essays on history (to be found in The Proper Study of Mankind), which Carr attacks throughout.

solid art history text, 24 Oct 2007
A good text book, especially for students (like myself) who come from a a non-history background to study art history. Useful in preparing avenues for research topics or for constructing essays. I wish I had used this book more when I was studying for my MA!

A must have if you are attempting an Art History course, 09 Mar 2006
...but be warned, although the content of this book is excellent, the typeface (absolutely tiny) and the type colour (grey) makes reading it for more than 15 minutes at a time impossible!

small print paper back, 09 Dec 2004
This book is informative, concise and useful, if a little heavy going in places.

As previously mentioned by other reviewers the print is not just too small it is a very light and thin font. I have corrected vision with contact lenses and have never had a problem reading before - this book will be impossible for anyone with less than perfect sight to access. A new edition with plain font would be appreciated, especially as this is a study book for the O.U. with many mature students.

Awkwardly insighful, 04 Sep 2003
Art history and its methods is a difficult book to read, especially for someone who has little grasp of the technical terms. I read the book, hoping it would give further my knowledge of art history, as I am applying to study that subject next year. Eric Fernie's comments were helpful, as the extracts from art critics, like Vasari and Wolfflin, were sometimes challenging to read. However the later critics become increasingly painless when reading their extracts, such as Hans Belting and Griselda Pollock, though the texts still provoke creative thinking.

The book also has an extremely useful glossary of terms, in relatively straightfoward easy to understand definitions. This is a hard book to read all the way through, but I would recommend it to readers who have prior knowledge to the world of art history as it can be a useful reference book. For readers, who are new to the subject, like myself, I think starting with a less problematic book in terms of technical terms would be a better choice, such as the Story of Art, by E.H Gombrich, which I read shortly after finishing this book and was pleasantly surprised at how well he constructed his points without becoming stuck in technical detail.

A definitive aid for the art history student., 27 Apr 2003
If you are serious about the study of art history, this book can provide you with a very good understanding of research methodologies. I have taken a postgraduate course in research methodologies of history of art however nothing make me understand the broad picture better than this book, I think I have learned more from this £11 book than what I learned from my first term of study.

Excellent book, 18 Nov 2008
This books discusses history from a philosophical standpoint and defends it as a science.

A wide range of topics is discussed from whether history (in the sense of changes throughout time) can be explained by means of grand narratives and theories on the one hand and the nuts and bolts of carrying out research in archives and other sources of information on the other.

Great reading for history students and perhaps others e.g. philosophers.

A Strong Defence, 21 Oct 2008
The dreary trite pseudo-`insights' of post-modernism reappear again; this time with their feeble attempts to turn history into just another `text'. However, as Evans so splendidly puts it in this, his robust defence of history:

"Auschwitz was not a discourse. It trivializes mass murder to see it as a text. The gas chambers were not a piece of rhetoric. Auschwitz was indeed inherently a tragedy and connate be seen as either a comedy or a farce. And if this is true of Auschwitz, then it must be true at least to some degree of other past happenings, events, institutions, people as well."

History as Evans argues has a long established methodology, which is itself constantly under scrutiny - as this book itself demonstrates by its own existence and its long line of antecedents - for establishing the veracity of historical events and the value of historian's attempts at explaining the relationship between those events.

As with all other areas where postmodernism has tried to elbow itself into, there is little - if anything - that postmodernism itself can add to history, or history's self-examination that is not trite, superficial or painstakingly obvious before the weight of postmodernism's own contradictions smother it's pseudo-profundities and irrelevances.

Postmodernism et al, of course, grew out of the failure and collapse of Marxism and all the theories and suppositions which had grown from it. Marx's own idea that history had a purpose (or - at least - discoverable laws) and direction was - of course - destroyed by Popper (among others), and - most tellingly - by the course of history itself.

History does not make the claims that postmodernists accuse it of - of being the absolute truth about past events - and so their destruction of this strawman is not the masterstroke they seem to believe. Historians, and those of us who read their work, know that there is always more to the story than we get from any history book. History is not a science in the strong sense of that word, but it does have a rigorous methodology, enough to make both historians and their readers feel confident that they do get as close to truth as they can within the limitations of history itself. For example, historians are very aware that historical documents are written by fallible human beings, often for a variety of reasons conscious or unconscious and take into account many other factors like the context of the document, the nature of the document and so on. So the postmodernist claim that a document, or `text' as they like to call it, can no longer be regarded as having one fixed meaning which is bestowed upon it by its author at the time of writing. As Evans says, though `it is doubtful whether anyone, in fact, has ever believed that meaning can be fixed in this way.' He also demonstrates the falsehood of po-mo's claim about the arbitrariness of language, demonstrating that language evolves through contact and interaction with reality, rather than just being about itself. In fact, Evens states `...the postmodernist concentration on words diverts attention away from real suffering and oppression and towards the kinds of secondary intellectual issues that matter in the physically comfortable world of academia.'

Of course, a great deal of po-mo - pace Foucault - is rather simplistically obsessed with what they like to see as power relationships between various actors within societies, but, Evans points out, this could be more a case of the po-mo academics themselves trying to claw back some power and influence for themselves. Hence, with postmodernism's disdain for truth and reality:

"The past no longer has the power to confine the researcher within the bounds of facts. Historians and critics are now omnipotent. To underline this, the postmodernists have developed a new level of specialized language and jargon, borrowed largely from literary theory, which has rendered their work opaque to anyone except other postmodernists. The enterprise thus seems not only self-regarding but, ironically in view of its criticism of hierarchy and prioritization, elitist as well. Its narcissism and elitism can both be seen as compensatory mechanisms for the loss of real power, income and status suffered by its academic practitioners over the past ten to fifteen years."

Constantly, throughout this book Evans - like so many other critics of postmodernism in many other areas beyond history - demonstrates that po-mo must always fail because of its inherent contradictions. For example, if all theories are equally valid, then why give any special credence to po-mo, rather than more realist theories? If all knowledge is relative, then why bother believing in po-mo and its practitioners? Why `privilege' postmodernists over anyone else?

Evans, does in the end allow po-mo some limited room in the practice of historical scholarship, but only in terms of the way it makes historians more aware of the limitations of their approach and areas of study, but that is what a good historian should do anyway, it seems.

Anyway, postmodernism is well on the wane now, in areas beyond history. So soon, books like this will become objects of historical curiosity only, like books on or about so many of the ideologies that came promising so much and - in the end - delivered little or nothing of any lasting worth. Just like so many theories, ideologies and other `grand narrative', po-mo became quasi-religious and ended up talking only to itself about itself within constraints that it engendered itself which kept out so much of the awkward reality that cannot be held within those constraints without the whole edifice crumbling to dust.

In Defence of History is a very good, readable, book that ought to be read by more than just historians and those with an interest in how history comes about. It is a strong defence of academic rigour and a warning that, without that rigour -which postmodernism tried so hard to undermine - if the academic, or indeed any, mind is left too open, then anything could crawl in.



The day I fell in love with Science..., 18 Aug 2007
The day I fell in love with Science was a funny day, weird in that I don't remember it. We had an on-off relationship going on for a while, for so long I don't remember. And we had a child eventually. We called her Time. Time went off and did her own thing and me and Science split up, not before he unfortunately become impotent somewhat and we had another two kids with uncertain patronage who we called Richard and Richard (Dawkins and Evans). Then I met another woman, Art who I fell head over heels for. She had everything: beauty, passion, communication skills to die for. You name it. I was still on speaking terms with Science. And he'd rather miraculously regained his fertility. Generously, (perhaps he too was bowled over by the beauty of Art) decided to donate his sperm. And we had four more kids. Born not long after the birth of Time. Love, Postmodernism, Now and Nextweek. Science had buggared off to have an affair with Money so me and Art brought them up.

And my name ?... History.

On a more serious note, Evan's book is a masterpiece. I don't agree with his lambasting of postmodernism on the whole, and rather than being a defence of history it's more of an attack on postmodernism. History, in my opinion, doesn't need defending, especially not from postmodernists, who seem to have added a lot to it, as Evans indeed argues particularly in the last chapter. But the book is so well written it's an absolute classic. He presents the themes extremely clearly, summarizing all the main historical theories and players so well. I personally think he starts tying himself in knots when attempting to defend `facts', `events', `morality' and `objectivity'. It's correct for historians to now, as we do under the influence of postmodernism, say what our influences are or could be. To suggest that we're in some sort of bubble, immune from the present day is preposterous. For example I'm about to start historical research into age discrimination and on page 156 Evans says `In the end, therefore, time does pass, a fact we experience only too painfully in the process of human ageing' - surely an ageist comment? Evans spends quite an amount of time criticizing other historians in terms of getting their `facts' wrong - eg Carr and Paul de Man. And he says `Where do we draw the line between all this and legitimate reinterpretation?' Well who says what is `legitimate'? By trying to define facts, events, morality and objectivity Evans is himself taking on this legitimizing role. And perhaps he's up to the job (especially if he acknowledges that ageist comment in the next edition!). My view is that we are actually in the postmodern era. So we're all postmodernists now - and I believe Evans has proved this in the strength, power and persuasion of his writing, as he himself says: `One thing which the postmodernist treatment of history as a form of literature has done is to reinstate good writing as legitimate historical practice'.


A great defence of history and a great defense of the truth., 04 Mar 2007
Somehow postmodernist theory has gotten into the main stream of academia. Their grand, intricate, convoluted theories, that when applied, actually don't work, are being preached by English Literature teachers and cultural and critical theorist to young eager minds in university who unfortunately don't know any better and soak up the information. These postmodernist theorists are creating an atmosphere of nihilism, where young people have stopped entering debates, stopped searching for the truth, and have actually stopped believing that there is a truth. The young now, even more so, retreat into their over stimulating computer games and televisions and forget about what is real, and about truth altogether. This seems to be fine with some people, and fine with the postmodernist theorist, however some, like Richard Evans, believe that there are serious problems with the above type of passivity. There are serious consequences to postmodernist ideology, in which it gives a license to anybody who wants to suppress, distort, or cover up the past, and thus the truth.

Some postmodernist claim that there is no real difference between history and fiction. It is true not every line in a historian's text is fact. There are only so many facts left behind by history, and for the rest, the historians have to fill in the gaps with their best judgment. However historians cannot simply impose any meaning they want to either, and just come up with fiction. They are limited by the facts and by the words a document contains, words which are not, contrary to what postmodernists claim, capable of an infinity of meaning. The historian Richard Evans states that doing historical research is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where some pieces have been destroyed. However if the pieces you do have `only fit together to produce a steam-engine [...] it is no good trying to put them together to make a suburban garden: it simply will not work.' So it is correct that not everything in a historian's text is absolutely true and objective, however there are objective facts and truths involved. Historians then are not always providing the absolute truth, and most of them would not claim to, but altogether, are providing the probable truth, in which they have done their best to establish by following the rigorous rules of evidence.

Richard Evans book In Defense Of History brilliantly reasons out and destroys most of these absurd postmodernist claims, which really should never have got to the stage of where millions of university students are learning in great detail their theories, as if they actually were correct and have high standing. What should be happening is that great books like Richard Evans In Defense of History should be mandatory reading for university courses and studied in great detail, and postmodernist theories only brushed upon. That would create a better environment and would be altogether better for humanity.

There is a truth, a reality, and it can be, and there needs to be, an attempt to discover it. If revisionist historians have their way then present and future generations will suffer, for people will not get the truth and will not be able to learn from it. And as history has taught us, if you don't learn from the past, then you are in danger of repeating it.



A brain-saving study, 23 Jan 2005
I have re-read this book several times while in education, and it has restored my enthusiasm for academic work at times when the prevalence of post-structuralist theory in universities has left me thoroughly despondent. Evans is an acute critic, generous as well as exacting, and his writing is entertaining even when covering the most arcane philosophy. This book successfully unites a keen awareness of the theory of history with a pragmatic appreciation of its practice. Members of any discipline in which reading and writing are important (I come from an English literature background) can learn a lot, and take a lot of reassurance, from this rebuttal to relativism. Incidentally, the final chapter of the revised edition, in which Evans takes on his unfriendly critics, is one of the funniest shows of debunking available. A splendid book.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........., 04 Nov 2008
Overly complex, arrogant and long-winded - I had to read this book for my degree, and hated every second of it.

E.H Carr, a great thinker, 07 Aug 2008
EH Carr was a great thinker, and in this series of lectures published in What Is History he tackles deep philosophical questions with a wit and intelligent investigation that is difficult to dislike. A bit wordy in places, and a bit mind boggling in others, What Is History is still thought provoking and interesting, just as it should be.

A classic of Historiography, 13 Aug 2007
I have always been interested in the theoretical side of history and this remains one of the best books to start with. It has been a few years since I was at University, but this used to be a set text for first year undergraduates, in order to give them some understanding of the 'history of history'. Carr's text is highly readable and his analogies very useful - ie. thinking of historians as merely individuals in a very long, winding procession of people through a mountainous valley - looking back at events going on further back in the queue, their views differing according to whereabouts in the procession he or she was at the time. Still a great starting point for an often complex subject.

What is History? Good question, 22 Oct 2003
There are many definitions of what History is, and what it means for different sections of society at different times. E.H. Carr's primary argument is that the interpretation of history from certain historians is dependent upon their position in society, and indeed are formulated by society's view of the period. One historian writing in the 1950's may have a totally different interpretation of events that, say, a present day historical writer.

This book is a fascinating account of historical arguments through time, and is really useful if, like me, you are studying for a History degree at University!!!

Compulsive reading but (unnecessarily?) complex in places, 20 Mar 2002
This collection of essays by the late E. H. Carr is particularly interesting to any student of historiography, or indeed the general reader. It clearly outlines his thoughts on the subject of the theory and philosophy of history, and he illustrates his ideas well, bedding down abstract concepts with concrete examples. The only criticism, aside from objections to his theories, is that Carr occasionally leaves the more earth-bound reader behind. So gymnastic is his intellectual ability that he makes leaps from abstract trapeze to abstract trapeze, leaving the reader lost and blank, forcing them to read and re-read. Aside from that this is an excellent collection, complemented well by the discussion about Carr's notes towards a second edition. Should be read in conjunction with I. Berlin's essays on history (to be found in The Proper Study of Mankind), which Carr attacks throughout.

solid art history text, 24 Oct 2007
A good text book, especially for students (like myself) who come from a a non-history background to study art history. Useful in preparing avenues for research topics or for constructing essays. I wish I had used this book more when I was studying for my MA!

A must have if you are attempting an Art History course, 09 Mar 2006
...but be warned, although the content of this book is excellent, the typeface (absolutely tiny) and the type colour (grey) makes reading it for more than 15 minutes at a time impossible!

small print paper back, 09 Dec 2004
This book is informative, concise and useful, if a little heavy going in places.

As previously mentioned by other reviewers the print is not just too small it is a very light and thin font. I have corrected vision with contact lenses and have never had a problem reading before - this book will be impossible for anyone with less than perfect sight to access. A new edition with plain font would be appreciated, especially as this is a study book for the O.U. with many mature students.

Awkwardly insighful, 04 Sep 2003
Art history and its methods is a difficult book to read, especially for someone who has little grasp of the technical terms. I read the book, hoping it would give further my knowledge of art history, as I am applying to study that subject next year. Eric Fernie's comments were helpful, as the extracts from art critics, like Vasari and Wolfflin, were sometimes challenging to read. However the later critics become increasingly painless when reading their extracts, such as Hans Belting and Griselda Pollock, though the texts still provoke creative thinking.

The book also has an extremely useful glossary of terms, in relatively straightfoward easy to understand definitions. This is a hard book to read all the way through, but I would recommend it to readers who have prior knowledge to the world of art history as it can be a useful reference book. For readers, who are new to the subject, like myself, I think starting with a less problematic book in terms of technical terms would be a better choice, such as the Story of Art, by E.H Gombrich, which I read shortly after finishing this book and was pleasantly surprised at how well he constructed his points without becoming stuck in technical detail.

A definitive aid for the art history student., 27 Apr 2003
If you are serious about the study of art history, this book can provide you with a very good understanding of research methodologies. I have taken a postgraduate course in research methodologies of history of art however nothing make me understand the broad picture better than this book, I think I have learned more from this £11 book than what I learned from my first term of study.

Interesting book, 18 Nov 2008
This was an interesting and thought provoking book suitable for either history students or just people with an interest in history.

It touches on various topics e.g. how cats were highly valued in Ancient Egypt but tended to be ill-treated in Middle Age and Early Modern Europe. This illustrates that attitudes in different times and places vary.

Also interesting was a discusion about how historians can use documents made for one purpose to obtain information about something different provided that they take care. I think that this book goes well with R J Evan's book " In Defence of History".

A Short History of History, 11 Jun 2005
Arnold takes 'historiography' to be the process of writing history, and 'history' to be the result of that process, i.e. to be a set of true stories about the past. If you enjoy reading history, then you should read at least something about historiography, to help you evaluate and interpret what you read. This short introduction to the subject is probably as good a place as any to start and for many readers will be as much historiography as they think they need.

Major figures such as Thucydides and von Ranke are discussed and central issues in the philosophy of history, such as the extent to which people of other times were essentially different from us, are introduced. Arnold presents a wide range of opinions on these various topics, but has a bias toward the politically correct.

His style is readable, if sometimes clumsy, but overall this little book succeeds admirably in its task and contains a wealth of information and opinion. It is recommended for anyone wanting to get beyond the 'true stories' to what history really is.

Essential reading for anyone interested in History, 09 Jun 2002
This is an excellent, well written and thought provoking book about what it might mean to do History (and most other things). Students and readers of all ages will find it a valuable aid to reaching an understanding of the many different kinds of history there are and of how to go about choosing, reading and enjoying them.

A must for anyone who's even vaguely interested in history., 01 Feb 2001
This is a lively, provocative book. Arnold introduces, in a very personable and readable manner, some central questions about what history is, and can claim to be, and how it can be "done". He explores these questions through some entertaining and refreshing examples of historical source material.

Arnold strikes a balance that carries the reader through the complexities of the issues at hand without descending into patronising simplification, or bewildering jargon. He obviously has a passion for his subject, and this comes across very strongly in the book.

If you think history is all "kings and battles" and BBC2 programmes about archaeology, read this book- it might change your mind.

Excellent book, 18 Nov 2008
This books discusses history from a philosophical standpoint and defends it as a science.

A wide range of topics is discussed from whether history (in the sense of changes throughout time) can be explained by means of grand narratives and theories on the one hand and the nuts and bolts of carrying out research in archives and other sources of information on the other.

Great reading for history students and perhaps others e.g. philosophers.

A Strong Defence, 21 Oct 2008
The dreary trite pseudo-`insights' of post-modernism reappear again; this time with their feeble attempts to turn history into just another `text'. However, as Evans so splendidly puts it in this, his robust defence of history:

"Auschwitz was not a discourse. It trivializes mass murder to see it as a text. The gas chambers were not a piece of rhetoric. Auschwitz was indeed inherently a tragedy and connate be seen as either a comedy or a farce. And if this is true of Auschwitz, then it must be true at least to some degree of other past happenings, events, institutions, people as well."

History as Evans argues has a long established methodology, which is itself constantly under scrutiny - as this book itself demonstrates by its own existence and its long line of antecedents - for establishing the veracity of historical events and the value of historian's attempts at explaining the relationship between those events.

As with all other areas where postmodernism has tried to elbow itself into, there is little - if anything - that postmodernism itself can add to history, or history's self-examination that is not trite, superficial or painstakingly obvious before the weight of postmodernism's own contradictions smother it's pseudo-profundities and irrelevances.

Postmodernism et al, of course, grew out of the failure and collapse of Marxism and all the theories and suppositions which had grown from it. Marx's own idea that history had a purpose (or - at least - discoverable laws) and direction was - of course - destroyed by Popper (among others), and - most tellingly - by the course of history itself.

History does not make the claims that postmodernists accuse it of - of being the absolute truth about past events - and so their destruction of this strawman is not the masterstroke they seem to believe. Historians, and those of us who read their work, know that there is always more to the story than we get from any history book. History is not a science in the strong sense of that word, but it does have a rigorous methodology, enough to make both historians and their readers feel confident that they do get as close to truth as they can within the limitations of history itself. For example, historians are very aware that historical documents are written by fallible human beings, often for a variety of reasons conscious or unconscious and take into account many other factors like the context of the document, the nature of the document and so on. So the postmodernist claim that a document, or `text' as they like to call it, can no longer be regarded as having one fixed meaning which is bestowed upon it by its author at the time of writing. As Evans says, though `it is doubtful whether anyone, in fact, has ever believed that meaning can be fixed in this way.' He also demonstrates the falsehood of po-mo's claim about the arbitrariness of language, demonstrating that language evolves through contact and interaction with reality, rather than just being about itself. In fact, Evens states `...the postmodernist concentration on words diverts attention away from real suffering and oppression and towards the kinds of secondary intellectual issues that matter in the physically comfortable world of academia.'

Of course, a great deal of po-mo - pace Foucault - is rather simplistically obsessed with what they like to see as power relationships between various actors within societies, but, Evans points out, this could be more a case of the po-mo academics themselves trying to claw back some power and influence for themselves. Hence, with postmodernism's disdain for truth and reality:

"The past no longer has the power to confine the researcher within the bounds of facts. Historians and critics are now omnipotent. To underline this, the postmodernists have developed a new level of specialized language and jargon, borrowed largely from literary theory, which has rendered their work opaque to anyone except other postmodernists. The enterprise thus seems not only self-regarding but, ironically in view of its criticism of hierarchy and prioritization, elitist as well. Its narcissism and elitism can both be seen as compensatory mechanisms for the loss of real power, income and status suffered by its academic practitioners over the past ten to fifteen years."

Constantly, throughout this book Evans - like so many other critics of postmodernism in many other areas beyond history - demonstrates that po-mo must always fail because of its inherent contradictions. For example, if all theories are equally valid, then why give any special credence to po-mo, rather than more realist theories? If all knowledge is relative, then why bother believing in po-mo and its practitioners? Why `privilege' postmodernists over anyone else?

Evans, does in the end allow po-mo some limited room in the practice of historical scholarship, but only in terms of the way it makes historians more aware of the limitations of their approach and areas of study, but that is what a good historian should do anyway, it seems.

Anyway, postmodernism is well on the wane now, in areas beyond history. So soon, books like this will become objects of historical curiosity only, like books on or about so many of the ideologies that came promising so much and - in the end - delivered little or nothing of any lasting worth. Just like so many theories, ideologies and other `grand narrative', po-mo became quasi-religious and ended up talking only to itself about itself within constraints that it engendered itself which kept out so much of the awkward reality that cannot be held within those constraints without the whole edifice crumbling to dust.

In Defence of History is a very good, readable, book that ought to be read by more than just historians and those with an interest in how history comes about. It is a strong defence of academic rigour and a warning that, without that rigour -which postmodernism tried so hard to undermine - if the academic, or indeed any, mind is left too open, then anything could crawl in.



The day I fell in love with Science..., 18 Aug 2007
The day I fell in love with Science was a funny day, weird in that I don't remember it. We had an on-off relationship going on for a while, for so long I don't remember. And we had a child eventually. We called her Time. Time went off and did her own thing and me and Science split up, not before he unfortunately become impotent somewhat and we had another two kids with uncertain patronage who we called Richard and Richard (Dawkins and Evans). Then I met another woman, Art who I fell head over heels for. She had everything: beauty, passion, communication skills to die for. You name it. I was still on speaking terms with Science. And he'd rather miraculously regained his fertility. Generously, (perhaps he too was bowled over by the beauty of Art) decided to donate his sperm. And we had four more kids. Born not long after the birth of Time. Love, Postmodernism, Now and Nextweek. Science had buggared off to have an affair with Money so me and Art brought them up.

And my name ?... History.

On a more serious note, Evan's book is a masterpiece. I don't agree with his lambasting of postmodernism on the whole, and rather than being a defence of history it's more of an attack on postmodernism. History, in my opinion, doesn't need defending, especially not from postmodernists, who seem to have added a lot to it, as Evans indeed argues particularly in the last chapter. But the book is so well written it's an absolute classic. He presents the themes extremely clearly, summarizing all the main historical theories and players so well. I personally think he starts tying himself in knots when attempting to defend `facts', `events', `morality' and `objectivity'. It's correct for historians to now, as we do under the influence of postmodernism, say what our influences are or could be. To suggest that we're in some sort of bubble, immune from the present day is preposterous. For example I'm about to start historical research into age discrimination and on page 156 Evans says `In the end, therefore, time does pass, a fact we experience only too painfully in the process of human ageing' - surely an ageist comment? Evans spends quite an amount of time criticizing other historians in terms of getting their `facts' wrong - eg Carr and Paul de Man. And he says `Where do we draw the line between all this and legitimate reinterpretation?' Well who says what is `legitimate'? By trying to define facts, events, morality and objectivity Evans is himself taking on this legitimizing role. And perhaps he's up to the job (especially if he acknowledges that ageist comment in the next edition!). My view is that we are actually in the postmodern era. So we're all postmodernists now - and I believe Evans has proved this in the strength, power and persuasion of his writing, as he himself says: `One thing which the postmodernist treatment of history as a form of literature has done is to reinstate good writing as legitimate historical practice'.


A great defence of history and a great defense of the truth., 04 Mar 2007
Somehow postmodernist theory has gotten into the main stream of academia. Their grand, intricate, convoluted theories, that when applied, actually don't work, are being preached by English Literature teachers and cultural and critical theorist to young eager minds in university who unfortunately don't know any better and soak up the information. These postmodernist theorists are creating an atmosphere of nihilism, where young people have stopped entering debates, stopped searching for the truth, and have actually stopped believing that there is a truth. The young now, even more so, retreat into their over stimulating computer games and televisions and forget about what is real, and about truth altogether. This seems to be fine with some people, and fine with the postmodernist theorist, however some, like Richard Evans, believe that there are serious problems with the above type of passivity. There are serious consequences to postmodernist ideology, in which it gives a license to anybody who wants to suppress, distort, or cover up the past, and thus the truth.

Some postmodernist claim that there is no real difference between history and fiction. It is true not every line in a historian's text is fact. There are only so many facts left behind by history, and for the rest, the historians have to fill in the gaps with their best judgment. However historians cannot simply impose any meaning they want to either, and just come up with fiction. They are limited by the facts and by the words a document contains, words which are not, contrary to what postmodernists claim, capable of an infinity of meaning. The historian Richard Evans states that doing historical research is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where some pieces have been destroyed. However if the pieces you do have `only fit together to produce a steam-engine [...] it is no good trying to put them together to make a suburban garden: it simply will not work.' So it is correct that not everything in a historian's text is absolutely true and objective, however there are objective facts and truths involved. Historians then are not always providing the absolute truth, and most of them would not claim to, but altogether, are providing the probable truth, in which they have done their best to establish by following the rigorous rules of evidence.

Richard Evans book In Defense Of History brilliantly reasons out and destroys most of these absurd postmodernist claims, which really should never have got to the stage of where millions of university students are learning in great detail their theories, as if they actually were correct and have high standing. What should be happening is that great books like Richard Evans In Defense of History should be mandatory reading for university courses and studied in great detail, and postmodernist theories only brushed upon. That would create a better environment and would be altogether better for humanity.

There is a truth, a reality, and it can be, and there needs to be, an attempt to discover it. If revisionist historians have their way then present and future generations will suffer, for people will not get the truth and will not be able to learn from it. And as history has taught us, if you don't learn from the past, then you are in danger of repeating it.



A brain-saving study, 23 Jan 2005
I have re-read this book several times while in education, and it has restored my enthusiasm for academic work at times when the prevalence of post-structuralist theory in universities has left me thoroughly despondent. Evans is an acute critic, generous as well as exacting, and his writing is entertaining even when covering the most arcane philosophy. This book successfully unites a keen awareness of the theory of history with a pragmatic appreciation of its practice. Members of any discipline in which reading and writing are important (I come from an English literature background) can learn a lot, and take a lot of reassurance, from this rebuttal to relativism. Incidentally, the final chapter of the revised edition, in which Evans takes on his unfriendly critics, is one of the funniest shows of debunking available. A splendid book.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........., 04 Nov 2008
Overly complex, arrogant and long-winded - I had to read this book for my degree, and hated every second of it.

E.H Carr, a great thinker, 07 Aug 2008
EH Carr was a great thinker, and in this series of lectures published in What Is History he tackles deep philosophical questions with a wit and intelligent investigation that is difficult to dislike. A bit wordy in places, and a bit mind boggling in others, What Is History is still thought provoking and interesting, just as it should be.

A classic of Historiography, 13 Aug 2007
I have always been interested in the theoretical side of history and this remains one of the best books to start with. It has been a few years since I was at University, but this used to be a set text for first year undergraduates, in order to give them some understanding of the 'history of history'. Carr's text is highly readable and his analogies very useful - ie. thinking of historians as merely individuals in a very long, winding procession of people through a mountainous valley - looking back at events going on further back in the queue, their views differing according to whereabouts in the procession he or she was at the time. Still a great starting point for an often complex subject.

What is History? Good question, 22 Oct 2003
There are many definitions of what History is, and what it means for different sections of society at different times. E.H. Carr's primary argument is that the interpretation of history from certain historians is dependent upon their position in society, and indeed are formulated by society's view of the period. One historian writing in the 1950's may have a totally different interpretation of events that, say, a present day historical writer.

This book is a fascinating account of historical arguments through time, and is really useful if, like me, you are studying for a History degree at University!!!

Compulsive reading but (unnecessarily?) complex in places, 20 Mar 2002
This collection of essays by the late E. H. Carr is particularly interesting to any student of historiography, or indeed the general reader. It clearly outlines his thoughts on the subject of the theory and philosophy of history, and he illustrates his ideas well, bedding down abstract concepts with concrete examples. The only criticism, aside from objections to his theories, is that Carr occasionally leaves the more earth-bound reader behind. So gymnastic is his intellectual ability that he makes leaps from abstract trapeze to abstract trapeze, leaving the reader lost and blank, forcing them to read and re-read. Aside from that this is an excellent collection, complemented well by the discussion about Carr's notes towards a second edition. Should be read in conjunction with I. Berlin's essays on history (to be found in The Proper Study of Mankind), which Carr attacks throughout.

solid art history text, 24 Oct 2007
A good text book, especially for students (like myself) who come from a a non-history background to study art history. Useful in preparing avenues for research topics or for constructing essays. I wish I had used this book more when I was studying for my MA!

A must have if you are attempting an Art History course, 09 Mar 2006
...but be warned, although the content of this book is excellent, the typeface (absolutely tiny) and the type colour (grey) makes reading it for more than 15 minutes at a time impossible!

small print paper back, 09 Dec 2004
This book is informative, concise and useful, if a little heavy going in places.

As previously mentioned by other reviewers the print is not just too small it is a very light and thin font. I have corrected vision with contact lenses and have never had a problem reading before - this book will be impossible for anyone with less than perfect sight to access. A new edition with plain font would be appreciated, especially as this is a study book for the O.U. with many mature students.

Awkwardly insighful, 04 Sep 2003
Art history and its methods is a difficult book to read, especially for someone who has little grasp of the technical terms. I read the book, hoping it would give further my knowledge of art history, as I am applying to study that subject next year. Eric Fernie's comments were helpful, as the extracts from art critics, like Vasari and Wolfflin, were sometimes challenging to read. However the later critics become increasingly painless when reading their extracts, such as Hans Belting and Griselda Pollock, though the texts still provoke creative thinking.

The book also has an extremely useful glossary of terms, in relatively straightfoward easy to understand definitions. This is a hard book to read all the way through, but I would recommend it to readers who have prior knowledge to the world of art history as it can be a useful reference book. For readers, who are new to the subject, like myself, I think starting with a less problematic book in terms of technical terms would be a better choice, such as the Story of Art, by E.H Gombrich, which I read shortly after finishing this book and was pleasantly surprised at how well he constructed his points without becoming stuck in technical detail.

A definitive aid for the art history student., 27 Apr 2003
If you are serious about the study of art history, this book can provide you with a very good understanding of research methodologies. I have taken a postgraduate course in research methodologies of history of art however nothing make me understand the broad picture better than this book, I think I have learned more from this £11 book than what I learned from my first term of study.

Interesting book, 18 Nov 2008
This was an interesting and thought provoking book suitable for either history students or just people with an interest in history.

It touches on various topics e.g. how cats were highly valued in Ancient Egypt but tended to be ill-treated in Middle Age and Early Modern Europe. This illustrates that attitudes in different times and places vary.

Also interesting was a discusion about how historians can use documents made for one purpose to obtain information about something different provided that they take care. I think that this book goes well with R J Evan's book " In Defence of History".

A Short History of History, 11 Jun 2005
Arnold takes 'historiography' to be the process of writing history, and 'history' to be the result of that process, i.e. to be a set of true stories about the past. If you enjoy reading history, then you should read at least something about historiography, to help you evaluate and interpret what you read. This short introduction to the subject is probably as good a place as any to start and for many readers will be as much historiography as they think they need.

Major figures such as Thucydides and von Ranke are discussed and central issues in the philosophy of history, such as the extent to which people of other times were essentially different from us, are introduced. Arnold presents a wide range of opinions on these various topics, but has a bias toward the politically correct.

His style is readable, if sometimes clumsy, but overall this little book succeeds admirably in its task and contains a wealth of information and opinion. It is recommended for anyone wanting to get beyond the 'true stories' to what history really is.

Essential reading for anyone interested in History, 09 Jun 2002
This is an excellent, well written and thought provoking book about what it might mean to do History (and most other things). Students and readers of all ages will find it a valuable aid to reaching an understanding of the many different kinds of history there are and of how to go about choosing, reading and enjoying them.

A must for anyone who's even vaguely interested in history., 01 Feb 2001
This is a lively, provocative book. Arnold introduces, in a very personable and readable manner, some central questions about what history is, and can claim to be, and how it can be "done". He explores these questions through some entertaining and refreshing examples of historical source material.

Arnold strikes a balance that carries the reader through the complexities of the issues at hand without descending into patronising simplification, or bewildering jargon. He obviously has a passion for his subject, and this comes across very strongly in the book.

If you think history is all "kings and battles" and BBC2 programmes about archaeology, read this book- it might change your mind.

The best historiography textbook, 08 Nov 2007
John Tosh is in my view an excellent writer. This book enables even dimwits like me to understand the basics of historiography - the methods of history. This edition has really helpful notes in the margins explaining more complicated terms in a very simple way - spelling out anachronistic for example. Where I disagree with him slightly is in his emphasis on oral history being a technique rather than a 'genre'. OK he dedicates a fair bit of space to his book to discussing oral history but is not as positive about its contribution as Gwyn Prins - whose argument is better backed up by sources.

Good read but hard-going in parts, 03 Oct 2007
This is a good introduction to the ongoing debates surrounding history. I brought it when I was studying the nature and purpose of history at uni and it did help me. Tosh covers many topics, including the use of history, sources and oral history, themes and many others in an objective way, using a lot of sources. His only problem is his work is not all that easy to read, and I often found myself having to read some pages several times over for the message to sink in.

Excellent, 04 Nov 2001
Having completed a BA Honours degree in History in 1999 I am still very surprised by the rarity of a worthwhile book on my subject. One that unpacks the discipline itself, inspires enthusiasm and a genuine sense of enjoyment. Invariably you are pointed in the direction of 'How to Study' books as a substitute. But these are an appalling slog for the average reader. They usually comprise 200 pages on how to skim read, make a spider diagram and render a perfectly good text book worthless with a flourescent green highlighter pen! In fact, most 'This is History' books that you can lay hands on are even worse, being almost always 'Source- hysterical'. Just how many times can you explain 'Primary' 'Secondary' and the 'Who', 'What' 'When' and 'To what end' conundrums of witting and unwitting testimony? Then if we stay awake long enough to reach chapter three we step into the academic minefield of verbose and complex 'Marx-speak'. Usually by this time I've joined 'Clarinet' or Tai Chi classes at the local College; sat next to ladies that resemble Renee Roberts of 70's Coronation Street fame. Thankfully however, John Tosh has saved us from such nightmares and produced a little triumph here. Nice, smooth, prose which glides through the subject with fluent skill. He handles historicism and theory without getting bogged down and I was left feeling genuinely 'interested'. History as a subject became far too Weimar obsessed-especially at A level- and fresh, new approaches are needed. Well done John!

An Excellent book for amateur historians and students!, 07 Jan 2001
This book is great as it looks at how to go about researching local history looking at issues such as oral, visual and written history. As it says in the title the author looks at "aims, methods and new directions in the study of modern history". Its a very good book for those just starting to look at researching history.Tosh deals with the problems that surround the uses of primary and secondary sources.

Excellent book, 18 Nov 2008
This books discusses history from a philosophical standpoint and defends it as a science.

A wide range of topics is discussed from whether history (in the sense of changes throughout time) can be explained by means of grand narratives and theories on the one hand and the nuts and bolts of carrying out research in archives and other sources of information on the other.

Great reading for history students and perhaps others e.g. philosophers.

A Strong Defence, 21 Oct 2008
The dreary trite pseudo-`insights' of post-modernism reappear again; this time with their feeble attempts to turn history into just another `text'. However, as Evans so splendidly puts it in this, his robust defence of history:

"Auschwitz was not a discourse. It trivializes mass murder to see it as a text. The gas chambers were not a piece of rhetoric. Auschwitz was indeed inherently a tragedy and connate be seen as either a comedy or a farce. And if this is true of Auschwitz, then it must be true at least to some degree of other past happenings, events, institutions, people as well."

History as Evans argues has a long established methodology, which is itself constantly under scrutiny - as this book itself demonstrates