David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In his inaugural lecture at Cambridge as Regius Professor of Modern History in 1895, Lord Acton urged that the historian deliver moral judgments on the figures of his research. Acton declaimed: I exhort you never to debase the moral currency or to lower the standard of rectitude, but to try others by the final maxim that governs your own lives and to suffer no man and no cause to escape the undying penalty which history has the power to inflict on wrong.1 In 1902, the year after Acton died, the president of the American Historical Association, Henry Lea, in dubious celebration of his British colleague, responded to the exordium with a contrary claim about the historian’s obligation, namely to render the facts of history objectively without subjective moralizing. Referring to Acton’s lecture, Lea declared: I must confess that to me all this seems to be based on false premises and to lead to unfortunate conclusions as to the objects and purposes of history, however much it may serve to give point and piquancy to a narrative, to stimulate the interests of the casual reader by heightening lights and deepening shadows, and to subserve the purpose of propagating the opinions of the writer.2 As our colleague Peter Novick has detailed in his great account of the American historical profession, by the turn of the century historians in the United States had begun their quest for scientific status, which for most seemed to preclude the leakage of moral opinion into the objective recovery of the past—at least in an overt way. Peter also catalogues the stumbling failures of this noble dream, when political partisanship and rampant nationalism sullied the ideal.3 Historians in our own time continue to be wary of rendering explicit moral pronouncements, thinking it a derogation of their obligations. On occasion, some historians have been moved to embrace the opposite attitude, especially when considering the horrendous events of the twentieth century—the Holocaust, for instance..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Robert Richards (2007). The Moral Grammar of Narratives in History of Biology: The Case of Haeckel and Nazi Biology. In David L. Hull & Michael Ruse (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge University Press. 429--51.
Leonard Mendes Marsak (1977). The Nature of Historical Inquiry. Huntington, N.Y.,R. E. Krieger Pub. Co..
Rocco Pezzimenti (2000). The Political Thought of Lord Acton: The English Catholics in the Nineteenth Century. Millennium Romae.
James M. Banner (2012). Being a Historian: An Introduction to the Professional World of History. Cambridge University Press.
Peter Burke (ed.) (2002). History and Historians in the Twentieth Century. Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press.
S. Knuuttila (ed.) (1980). Reforging the Great Chain of Being: Studies of the History of Modal Theories. Reidel.
Darren Staloff (1995). The Search for a Meaningful Past. Teaching Co..
Leonard Krieger (1989). Time's Reasons: Philosophies of History Old and New. University of Chicago Press.
Margaret C. Jacob (1997). Scientific Culture and the Making of the Industrial West. Oxford University Press.
James T. Kloppenberg (2004). Pragmatism and the Practice of History: From Turner and Du Bois to Today. Metaphilosophy 35 (1-2):202-225.
Knud Haakonssen (ed.) (2006). The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Jeffrey Edward Green (2012). On the Difference Between a Pupil and a Historian of Ideas. Journal of the Philosophy of History 6 (1):84-110.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads7 ( #147,287 of 1,008,712 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,702 of 1,008,712 )
How can I increase my downloads?