heathenhistory.co.uk

In recent years there has been considerable speculation about the Black Death. In particular, some historians have argued that it was not actually Bubonic plague at all. A good introduction to this can be found in the Scott / Duncan book The Return of the Black Death . Other theories have even suggested that it might have been an early form of HIV. In this context, this article from today’s Telegraph shows again the growing importance of scientific methodology to the study of History.

If only I had paid more attention in Biology…

Mr Kydd.

There are many things I liked about Patrick Collinson.  I always viewed him as a proper historian who was greatly underestimated, not least becasue of his association with Sir John Neale. He did in fact have an original mind, and for me an attractive writing style. If you want a well organised orthodox view of Elizabethan parliaments, you could do a lot worse than read his 1967 text “The Elizabethan Puritan Movement.” You don’t have to agree with it to appreciate it.  There is an appropriate obituary from the Daily Telegraph here .

A really interesting article from the BBC on Churchill here. In it,  John Gray argues that “a strange conjunction of events…(Churchill’s depression)… his black dog – together with the intervention of a loyal friend during a few fateful days in early May 1940 – enabled Churchill to achieve the position from which he could alter the course of history.”

For us as A Level historians it raises a number of  questions.

1. What is the value of counter-factual History? IE, the what if questions such as what if the Spanish Armada had succeeded ? Is this no more than pub History, or a useful technical tool which allows us to consider the importance of events ?

2. How should we view the roles of chance and the individual in History ? Since I was doing my A Levels there has been a move away from focusing on the individual to broader themes such as the role of economic factors. Hence, where once we would have focused upon Cavour and Garibaldi to explain the unification of Italy, we now look more to ideas like nationalism. I have often wondered how the events 1940 and Churchill fit in here. Is it the exception that proves the rule ?

If you want to listen to the Radio 4 programme, then click this link.

Well perhaps.

I found my A Level Economics rather too demanding to make an informed comment. Some, like William Keegan in The Observer clearly think that we are heading for very choppy waters. He argues that it is all “getting serious”, continuing that ” The British economy is on the verge of an economic and social catastrophe. So is our principal export market, the eurozone. And the mighty United States, whose treasury secretary has commendably urged Europe to pull itself together, is up against the unfortunate reality that the Republicans are doing their level best to pull their own country apart.”

It is natural for us historians to look over our shoulders at the Great Depression here. What parallels can and should be drawn ? Or is this just lazy and easy History ? Have a look at this BBC Audio slideshow and see what you think.

In August I posted some reactions to Starkey’s comments about the riots on Newsnight. I asked then  why when major events happen do we turn to historians to explain them. This article from the Daily Telegraph really asks the same question. The difference is that it is asked by historians themselves, who believed that Starkey  lacked “understanding of the history of ordinary life in modern Britain” to do the job properly. The full letter can be found here – read it for yourself.

Whatever you think about all this, two things appear to be true.

1. Historians like knocking lumps out of each other.

2. David Starkey comments about race and riots are not going to be forgotten in a hurry.