The Role Of The Historian

Bookmark and Share

It’s early Saturday morning and I’m driving through history on my way to history. Like the hills I’m traveling through, the rain ebbs and flows in calm undulating waves.

“Calm” and “undulating” might not go together at first glance but think of sinusoidal waves. They move up and down with precise regularity. That regularity equates to calmness. The “up and down” represents “undulation” defined.

Such is the role of the historian, who commands the log of the human ship through waves of foible fads, ever trying to keep it calm and undamaged, despite its erratic and often misguided crew.

“Memory, thy name be frailty.” The metaphor of this butchered Shakespearian quote suggests the theme of this essay. It also represents the burden of the historian.

Just what is the role of the historian?

And by “historian” I refer to the traditional “chronicler” of history definition, not the definition provided by New York State as it pertains to publicly appointed historians. This legal definition was provided in a previous Commentary (“The History of Local Historians,” Mendon-Honeoye Falls-Lima Sentinel, September 14, 2023). New York State law treats publicly appointed historians as those who support the research of others, not necessarily as those who conduct primary research (although many do).

If we are to go to what many consider the primary source for definitions (the Oxford English Dictionary), we see “historian” defined as “A writer of history, esp. one who analyses events critically, as opposed to a chronicler or compiler; an expert in or student of history.”

But the OED ain’t what it used to be, and its definition of historian may betray a modernist view that lacks the purity of the original intent of what a historian does.

Its rival reference guide, the Cambridge Dictionary, defines historian more succinctly as “someone who writes about or studies history.” As brief as this definition is, it leaves open the question as to whether the proper historian duties are one of providing a raw chronicle of primary sources or one of analytical interpretation.

Face it, interpreting the actions of others can be a fun parlor game. Reporters have an advantage over historians here. A good reporter might interpret a news story, but that interpretation doesn’t find itself in the original article unless it can be confirmed through interviews of at least two independent primary sources.

Alas, for historians, the primary sources died years, decades, even centuries ago. Unfortunately, modern historians who “reenvision” history are mere speculators. Speculation represents the dividing line between art and science, faith and reason, hearsay and scholarship.

Ouch. Especially that last one.

If anything, historians ought to view themselves and their occupation as one of academic integrity. The rigors of good scholarship does allow for speculative interpretation, but only if it is qualified as such and only as a suggestion for the direction of future research.

Here’s an example. Actually, two very similar examples.

We know that George Washington crossed the Delaware and that Gaius Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Their later actions confirm why each general crossed these rivers. Those represent facts to chronicle.

What we don’t know is how they felt as they made the crossing. If we were a contemporary reporter, we would have asked them. This query then removes any need for interpretation.

But we can’t go back in time. As a historian curious about writing of these crossings from the personal perspective of Washington or Caesar, what should we do?

We have two choices.

We can imagine what they must have felt given the facts and circumstances known to us. This permits us to provide an interpretation of their feelings. This is what a good story-teller does.

Alternatively, we can find a journal or diary entry they might have made to describe their feelings. This is what a good reporter does.

Is one better than the other? From the point of view of a historian, as Jack Webb’s character Sergeant Joe Friday religiously said on Dragnet, “Just the facts, ma’am.”

Think about it like this. As eloquent as the prose may be, a fanciful interpretation is not the facts. If a historian writes this, there’s a risk some future historian will then reference it. Granted, that future historian makes the mistake of not relying on primary sources, but, after a few generations, that false story becomes the official record.

That’s not good history.

This dichotomy of “historian as chronicler” vs. “historian as interpreter” is as old as, well, history itself.

Many scholars agree with Cicero, who dubbed Herodotus as “the father of history.” His volume Histories chronicles detailed events of the Greco-Persian Wars. A newsman might refer to him as “the father of journalism” because his reporting relies exclusively in interviews with primary sources. Herodotus refrains from injecting his own interpretation of events. He tells us the “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” and “how.” However, unless told to him by one of the people he spoke with, there’s very little of the “why” in his work.

For this, Thucydides derided Herodotus. Born a generation after Herodotus, scholars often refer to Thucydides as “the father of modern history.” In writing his History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides employed what has been called “scientific history.” This allowed him to accept a broader array of sources and to interpret what he found, including criticizing those sources.

Thucydides accused Herodotus of making up stories for the sake of entertainment and for blindly accepting what his primary sources told him. Herodotus justified the former by agreeing with the latter. It wasn’t his entertaining story, it was his source’s entertaining story.

Here’s the irony. By sticking to the facts (i.e., retelling – not reinterpreting – what the primary source told him), Herodotus gave future researchers clues to dig up.

And they did. Modern historians and archeologists have confirmed most of what Herodotus wrote.

We can describe the two Greek historians thusly: Herodotus was news. Thucydides was news and analysis.

Herodotus was a good historian. Thucydides was also a good historian, but you might need to work harder to strip away the facts from the interpretation.

Interpretation isn’t bad, but that’s not the essential job of the historian. The historian, first and foremost, must chronicle and preserve primary source information. This is so future historians have access to critical data.

Hmm, in retrospect, maybe the New York State definition of the duties of a public historian is spot on.

The Day Lafayette Touched Mendon

Bookmark and Share

His full name was Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier de La Fayette. For short, he’s called the Marquis de La Fayette. If that doesn’t speak “wealth,” then what doesn’t? At least in his native France.

In traditionally egalitarian America, we know him simply as “Lafayette.” Coming from a family with a strong military tradition, he came to the New World in 1777 at the age of 19. Seeing the American Revolution as a noble cause, he joined the patriots and was immediately commissioned as a major general.

The title reflected more a sign of respect than of actual duty, for he was given no troops to command. Lafayette understood in America, one isn’t born to status, one must earn it.

And earn it, he did. He received his red badge of courage at the Battle of Brandywine. There, though wounded, he led an orderly retreat. His brave actions in the Battle of Rhode Island Continue Reading “The Day Lafayette Touched Mendon”

How To Steal An Election (And Get Away With It)

Bookmark and Share

Photo by Obi - @pixel6propix on UnsplashAllow me to disclaim the following up front: I do not condone the stealing of elections. I believe every voter should be given a fair opportunity to vote and that every vote should count. I also don’t condone shoplifting.

Now, back to reality.

First you must recognize that national politics is no longer about doing good. It’s simply a business.

There’s no other way to describe it. When that much money is involved, and people have figured out a way to profit from all that money, well, that’s the very definition of a business.

There’s a word for those who seek to do good through running for public office. We call Continue Reading “How To Steal An Election (And Get Away With It)”

Are You Grilling Or Are You Barbecuing?

Bookmark and Share

Ages ago an errant stroke of lightning struck a dry woodland. The ensuing fire consumed not only the trees, but several animals too slow to escape. A curious caveman meandered into the still smoldering forest. He stopped. What was that he smelled? It smelled… “delicious” would have been the word he would have used if he could speak English.

He looked all around for the source of that compelling aroma. Amidst the pockets of remaining flames, he found it. It looked ugly, a blackened char. Yet, it was unmistakable. The sumptuous scent came from what looked like what used to be an animal.

Salivating, he grabbed it and took a big deep bite.

Then promptly spit it out. “Yeech!” How could something that smelled so good taste so bad.

But the bite revealed the hidden treasure. Beneath the charred surface the caveman saw Continue Reading “Are You Grilling Or Are You Barbecuing?”

New York State Has A Serious Gerrymandering Problem – Here’s What To Do About It, But First…

Bookmark and Share

Original 1812 drawing of the Gerrymander by Elkanah Tisdale.

Marshall Pinckney Wilder was a popular humorist who travelled the world. A favorite of the British royal family, he wrote books, appeared in movies, and always signed his correspondence “Merrily yours.” He was born in Geneva in 1859 and grew up in Rochester, where he developed his talent as a storyteller (and also dabbled in clairvoyance, which was popular in Western New York during that era).

He was named after his great-uncle, a famed phytologist in Boston.

Well, not quite.

When the Bostonian botanist came into this world in 1798, his father gave him the name “Marshall Pinckney Gerry Wilder,” in honor of John Marshall, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Elbridge Gerry, the envoys to France appointed by President John Adams in 1797.

By the time he became a teenager, the name was shorted to “Marshall Pinckney Wilder.”

What happened to “Gerry”? Therein lies a tale of political intrigue and comeuppance that continues to this day.

More than a mere envoy, Elbridge Gerry stood out as a true Founding Father who eventually became the fifth Vice President of the United States. He signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He would have signed the United States Constitution, but he was one of three delegates who refused to do so on account it lacked a Bill of Rights.

So, what did he do? He became a congressman and, as such, spearheaded the effort to adopt the Bill of Rights (as the first ten amendments to the Constitution). Like George Washington, he opposed the idea of political parties.

Until France, that is.

You see, the three envoys were dispatched to iron out the Franco-American diplomatic breakdown that would come to be known as “the XYZ Affair.” Long story short, Gerry and his fellow Americans refused to bribe the French foreign minister Talleyrand. This was considered common practice in Europe, but, well, America was not Europe (especially at that time).

While Pinckney’s dad (and others) admired the envoys’ stand, the Federalists (who held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency) did not. They blamed the envoys for the failure to negotiate.

Up until then, Gerry had been staunchly non-partisan. After the Federalists vilification of him, he joined the Democratic-Republican party (the predecessor of our current Democrat party). He ran unsuccessfully for Governor of Massachusetts under that banner before finally being elected to the position in 1810.  He was reelected the following year after promoting a moderate if not bi-partisan course.

It was, however, in that second term where Gerry earned his infamous stripes. With the Democratic-Republican party in full control, Gerry showed his true partisan colors. He removed Federalist appointees from their State positions. But the worst was yet to come.

Although Massachusetts was evenly divided, the Democratic-Republicans used their power to apportion electoral district boundaries to make it more difficult for Federalists to regain the majority. The new districts they created were so contorted, Elkanah Tisdale, a well-known engraver, most likely was the person responsible for making a political cartoon lampooning the strange-shaped district. This first appeared in the March 26, 1812 Edition of the Boston Gazette.

We’ll let John Ward Dean tell the rest of the story (as he related it in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 46, published in 1892):

“Washington Allston, calling there with James Ogilvie, a lecturer on oratory, and noticing the figure, remarked to [Benjamin] Russell, the editor, ‘What an odd-looking creature is this! it looks like a Salamander.’ On which Ogilvie, quick as light, replies, ‘Why, let it be named Gerrymander, for the governor.’”

The Democratic-Republican plan, signed into law by Gerry, worked, but not for Gerry. He lost the next election. Though the Federalists had the most votes statewide, the Democratic-Republicans ended up with a three to one edge in the State Senate.

The vilified public pronounced their judgment by forcing Gerry out. He was assailed in the popular press. The May 23, 1812 Colombian Centinel (yes, they spelled it that way), quoting a Judge Story, wrote, “It would be well, however, if we could so ascertain beyond a doubt the real Father of this unnatural monster, that we might hold him up to everlasting scorn and contempt.”

Marshall Pinckney Gerry Wilder’s father took the measure one step further. According to Dean, who was quoting Wilder himself on this, “after the gerrymandering doings he lost his admiration and had the ‘Gerry’ struck out of his son’s name.”

By now, you’ve all read of our current state of Gerrymandering right here in New York State. It’s more than the usual tilting, it’s as egregious as Gerry’s was in 1812. We all know the motivations, but here’s how it hurts Monroe County especially.

Traditionally, Monroe County has had two Congressional districts. In recent years, this has meant we’ve been represented by both parties. That’s good because you never know which party will retain control of the House. By have two seats, one from each party, we’re guaranteed to have access to the majority.

If you listen to the experts, the Republicans are expected to gain control of the House following the mid-term elections. (This is a reasonable guess, given the number of Democrats who have decided not to seek reelection, the population shifting to “Red” states, and the usual party loss based on the White House incumbent.) As of now, Monroe County has only one seat (by comparison, Erie County has three) and it’s designed to be won by a Democrat.

Not good for Monroe County should the Republicans retake the house.

What’s the solution? There’s not a clear one. Basically, the majority rules, and the Democrats have a clear majority in the New York State legislature. They made a mockery of the independent bipartisan committee that was supposed to be responsible for redistricting, so you can see that’s not a viable option.

The fairest way to prevent gerrymandering is geometry-based rules. For example, every district must touch at least three other districts (two if the district is on a border) and at least two of those districts must not touch each other. In other words, each district must be a parallelogram (e.g., a square or a rectangular).

We don’t need a special commission, but we do need to prevent the redistricting abuse we’re seeing in our state.

Perhaps you should clip this column out and send it to an appropriate judge since there are now at least two cases challenging the New York State Gerrymander.

What (And Why) Is Greater Western New York?

Bookmark and Share
1779 map of Sullivan Campaign 6.18.1779-9.15.1779

1779 map of Sullivan Campaign

Believe it or not, we’re fast approaching a seminal anniversary in the history of Greater Western New York. At some point in the final days of August 1779, the first scouts of the Sullivan Expedition represented the first citizens of the new nation to step foot into what would become Greater Western New York.

They weren’t the first people in Greater Western New York. They weren’t even the first of European descent to enter the region.

They were, however, the first Americans to do so. And that is why Greater Western New York is often referred to as “America’s First Frontier.”

For those who were absent from school when they taught this, the Sullivan Expedition, Continue Reading “What (And Why) Is Greater Western New York?”

The Story of Abraham Parrish, Mendon’s First Tavern Keeper (Part III)

Bookmark and Share
1838 - Rochester in 1812 (showing first 'hotel') - Sketches of Rochester

Rochester in 1812 (showing first ‘hotel’). Source: Sketches of Rochester, 1838

Abraham Parrish had front row seats to watch his older brother Jasper become a success. And what a role model Jasper was. As a boy, Jasper had been captured by Indians in the immediate aftermath of the Wyoming Massacre in 1778, sold as a slave among various tribes, beaten mercilessly, nearly killed for a guinea when the British put a bounty on Yankee scalps, until he was finally bought by a Mohawk named “Captain Hill” for $20.29

Captain Hill so admired Jasper and Jasper so admired Captain Hill that in 1780 the Captain formally adopted Jasper in a traditional Iroquois ceremony. In turn, Jasper came to Continue Reading “The Story of Abraham Parrish, Mendon’s First Tavern Keeper (Part III)”

The Story of Abraham Parrish, Mendon’s First Tavern Keeper (Part II)

Bookmark and Share

Source: Ontario County Times, April 16, 1897

When last we left the family of Zebulon Parish, they had packed up their bags and the young’uns, including the toddler Abraham, and ventured out into the frontier wilderness of Connecticut. The family landed right smack dab in the middle of a hornet’s nest. More on that in a moment.

Abraham Parrish was born on March 30, 1772. There’s a couple of things you should know about Abraham: one which you’re already asking; and one which you probably don’t know enough to ask.

First, as you might have noticed, Abraham’s last name contains two r’s (“Parrish”) while his father (and his three oldest brothers Jacob, Nathan, and Isaac), kept the original spelling with one r (“Parish”).15 It’s not clear why.

Here’s the thing you likely don’t know: Abraham was Continue Reading “The Story of Abraham Parrish, Mendon’s First Tavern Keeper (Part II)”

Ode to a Once Mighty Oak

Bookmark and Share

And in that brief moment, its reign ended.

We don’t know how old it really was, but the centuries had exacted their toll. Despite the efforts of the valiant few, the rot that builds with age had eaten its way through the internal fabric that once supported its mighty infrastructure.

When that final gust rushed through, the great citadel had fallen. It had stood for so long that those closest to it, stunned by the fatal reality before their own eyes, could only muster an anemic disbelief.

All that incredulity could not suspend the finality that was. It was gone. Not really. But really.

*          *          *

The Seneca tribe was a fierce warrior tribe. They had to be. They guarded the “west gate” of the Iroquois Confederacy. From that position, they both protected one flank of their Continue Reading “Ode to a Once Mighty Oak”

Condemned to Repeat It: This 200+ Year Old Concept Rises Again in 2020

Bookmark and Share

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
– George Santayana in his 1905 series, The Life of Reason: the Phases of Human Progress.

It’s not new. It’s been with us since George Washington ended his second term as President. You might have heard it ended once and for all during the nadir of the American experiment.

But it’s still here. And for all its association with evil, the worst of our proud heritage, people continue to embrace it like a badge of honor.

Yet, it began with such promise…

No one ever questioned George Washington. He’s our first and probably last Continue Reading “Condemned to Repeat It: This 200+ Year Old Concept Rises Again in 2020”

Skip to content