Does popular history imply opposition to academic history?

Does popular history imply opposition to academic history?

by Darcy R. Keim, MA

 

Popular history, by definition, is a genre of historiography that aims at being consumable and accessible to a wider-audience; whereas academic history is based around a scholarly study of the past. A predominant contrast between both is that where academic history focuses on studying the past objectively, popular history often attempts to create an emotional narrative out of historical events. Due to the impassioned nature of popular history, the genre has often been criticized by academics for imparting false facts and a sentimental ideal of the past. This divide between the manner in which the past is perceived and depicted is a prominent example as to why there is a definite opposition between popular and academic history. The aim of this article is to attempt to address the extent of this opposition and if popular history and academic history must indeed remain entirely separate from one another in terms of our approach towards understanding the past.

 

Although both popular and academic history aid in shaping our understanding of the past, academic history is considered a far more reliable approach as it relies on remaining objective of historical events by the use of critically analysing facts. Nevertheless, it has been stressed by a few historians that it is sometimes difficult not to emotionally connect to the event or historical period that you are focusing on^[1]. Gerald Strauss, a historian known for his study of the German reformation, defines popular history as a scholarly exploration into historical events that concern ‘ordinary people’ - which has become increasingly mainstream over recent years - rather than history that is presented for the general public^[2]. However, Strauss does express that he believes historians should not be wholly objective towards their study of historical  accounts and even found that during his own study of the sixteenth-century Lutheran education, he had begun to connect to those who had been involved^[3]. In an article responding to Strauss’ observations, William Beik - known for his exploration into the social and cultural history of Early Modern France - additionally notes that historians will often find themselves connecting sympathetically to their period of study^[4] but that a distinct difference between the emotional attachment found in the academic study of history and that of popularizing a period by applying a narrative is that popular historians often read far too much into a desired outcome^[5]. Conclusively though, the opposition between academic and popular history tends to beg the question as to how one would define the core differences between the two. Are both the academic and popular approaches towards history as mutually exclusive from one another as has been initially thought?

 

As mentioned prior, the study of academic history is a whole lot more impersonal and factually based in comparison to the sentimental depictions often found in popular history. Nevertheless, certain mediums of this genre have often been considered a gateway towards studying history in a far more disciplined and academic environment. One example of this can be found through the use of historical literature; although the genre has often been heavily criticized as being incredibly historically inaccurate, it can be considered as approachable and engaging for a majority of people and an influence towards being further interested in the period they are reading about. Despite this, a considerable fault connected to historical literature is often the romanticization of the period the novel has been based in. Developing an emotional connection towards a certain period can possibly lead to the author or reader drawing conclusions that cannot be entirely supported by primary source documents. Often such conclusions are based on the sudden emotional connection the author or reader has developed in reference to the period and even the significant individuals involved during it. An example of this can be found in Philippa Gregory’s, The Virgin’s Lover - a novel regarding Elizabeth I’s ascension to the throne and her alleged affair with Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester - where Gregory plays on the controversial theory that both Elizabeth I and William Cecil (Elizabeth’s chief advisor throughout the majority of her reign) were involved in plotting the death of Amy Robsart, the wife of Dudley. Albeit the consideration that this remains to be one theory historians draw upon as it does highlight a few obscurities concerning Robsart’s death, there is unfortunately a minimal amount of supportive evidence to suggest that this was the result of murder^[6]. Although this may be the case, there are historians who analyse Robsart’s death from a slightly more intuitive perspective, by viewing the motives of those who had been referenced in concern with the incident. Alison Weir is illustrative of this in her book, The Life of Elizabeth I, in which she theorised that Cecil would have been entirely benefited by Robsart’s death as the outcome had indeed effectively removed Dudley from his position of favour; which, conveniently for Cecil, also meant Dudley’s removal from a position of influence^[7]. Nonetheless, this particular example of fictionalising controversial theories is demonstrative towards the idea that historical fiction does indeed play upon a desired outcome and therefore should not be relied upon as a source for historical accuracy. Admittedly though, even so Gregory - as a popular historian - does fictionally romanticise the past, it has to be acknowledged that there are historians, like Sarah Morris and Natalie Grueninger, who have perceived historical events intuitively. However, academic historians appear to rarely apply subjective reasoning to their work as it does have the potential to lead to sweeping generalisations.

 

Considering popular history is aimed to be far more accessible to the general public, it can therefore be found in a variety of forms such as historical literature, television, films, video-games and documentaries. Although this may prove beneficial in terms of educating a wider audience, consumable history has also been the subject of constant criticism as it does have the potential to move entirely away from historical accuracy. In relation to this, fictionalised history is often highlighted for its use of anachronisms. An anachronism, by definition, is when an item or style does not belong to the period being depicted. A particularly notable example of this can be found in the release of the BBC television series, The White Queen and the fact that it is unfortunately renowned for its continuous anachronisms; including dresses with zips, double-glazed windows, brick buildings and handrails aligned with concrete steps - all of which are not fitting within an English mid-fifteenth century setting. Similarly, Showtime’s The Tudors also has a reputation for committing a number of historical inaccuracies, even as minimal plot-devices (such as the introduction of Mark Smeaton as a violinist, despite the fact he was a virginalist^[8]) and with regards to its wide viewership, a lot of these inaccuracies were due to decisions concerning Showtime’s direction with the series. In Susan Bordo’s, The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England’s Most Notorious Queen, Showtime’s motives for The Tudors were revealed when Natalie Dormer (the actress who had portrayed Anne Boleyn) opened up about her issues concerning the series’ polarised representation of Anne. In an interview with Bordo, Dormer opened up about an initial problem that had arisen when Showtime’s president of entertainment, Robert Greenblatt, had thought to have Anne portrayed as a blonde, Dormer’s original hair colour^[9]. However, for the role, Dormer had her hair dyed Anne’s distinct dark brunette and in a discussion with Greenblatt, she stated that it was incredibly important that Anne was portrayed accurately^[10], as her dark features were an imperative aspect of her identity; her dark hair and eye colours had directly contrasted with the ‘English Rose’ idealism that was considered conventionally attractive during the sixteenth century, with even Cardinal Wolsey having had referred to her as “the night crow”^[11]. This evident dismissal of clear historical fact, such as Anne’s distinguishing appearance, is but one example that stresses an apprehension had towards popular history by academic historians. Due to marketing intentions, there are definite elements of unaddressed historical inaccuracies in media portrayals of the past; with reference to this form of consumable history, the media’s representation of the past unfortunately has a significant influence on how the general public may perceive it. Although this may be the case, there have been examples of academic historians positively reviewing the overall influence of historical dramas. In an interview with The Guardian, Michael Hicks admits that even so the broadcasted series of The White Queen is riddled with anachronisms, he still considers it an informative and well researched piece in regards to the detailed back-story^[12].

 

Although fictionalised history demonstrates a form of popular history that ought to be assessed critically, it is not to say that academic history cannot be approached through popular history. Documentaries are one form of consumable history that are often successfully academic by nature, as they are aimed towards an audience that have a greater interest in understanding the past. Albeit this though, there are examples of historical documentaries that although may appear to hold a strong argument and remain factually correct, either manage to impart historical errors or apply emotional fallacies in order to gain a wider viewership. One such example of this is the BBC documentary entitled, The Last Days of Anne Boleyn; a piece with the intention to relay the last few days of Anne Boleyn’s life and the influential factors that contributed to her overall downfall. The success of the documentary is most likely due to the historians involved - both academic and popular - such as Hilary Mantel, author of Wolf Hall and Alison Weir; recognisable names in relation to the study of this period. However, despite this, the programme still managed to broadcast several inaccuracies, one outstanding example being the utterly incorrect notion that Anne Boleyn’s execution had occurred six-hundred years ago despite it having been only four-hundred-and-seventy-seven years since. An error such as this one is particularly inexcusable, as it does take a minimal amount of research to acknowledge the amount of centuries that has passed since the date of her execution; a date that the documentary had even highlighted correctly. In addition to this precise fault, the narrative of the documentary consistently refers to Anne as a “commoner”, despite the fact she was of low noble birth, due to her connection with the Howard family through both the bloodline of her mother and the political influence of her uncle, Thomas Howard, third Duke of Norfolk; a notable figure towards her ascension. Additionally her father, Thomas Boleyn, was a renowned English diplomat during this period and within Henry VIII’s favour; even having been made a Knight of Bath during Henry’s own coronation^[13]. As an example, The Last Days of Anne Boleyn is illustrative of the manner in which popular history does have the ability to present misconceptions and false facts, even when associated with the study of academic history. Despite this, there are examples of documentaries that are successful due to their historical accuracy and unbiased nature, such as The Story of Wales; a programme that took viewers through thirty-thousand years worth of Welsh history. As a series, it had indeed managed to achieve a high opinion among viewers as it effectively represented the rich heritage and history of Wales by remaining both incredibly engaging to a general public viewership, as well as resourceful and well researched.

 

Conclusively, although it is possible to access academic history through popular history, there remains to be a definite opposition between both due to their contrasting characteristics and approaches. The study of academic history is wholly objective and factual by nature, although throughout this article it has been argued that it is also entirely possible for a historian to either emotionally connect to a period in history or to impart plausible theories when there is a significant lack of supportive evidence involved. Popular history, on the other hand, does not necessarily rely on historical facts, as the intention is often focused on maintaining an engaged viewership. Albeit there being examples where both academic and popular history do indeed interconnect, as demonstrated by the use of documentaries, both do remain opposing due to their juxtaposing aims and approach. It is generally considered a fault for an academic historian to romanticise historical figures or periods, as it could potentially dissociate their academic study of the subject from factual source for want of a desired outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Aird, I., ‘The Death of Amy Robsart’, The English Historical Review, 278 (Oxford, 1956), 67-79.

 

Barnett, L., ‘A Medieval Historian’s View on “The White Queen”’, The Guardian, 24 June 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/.

 

Beik, W., rev. ‘The Dilemma of Popular History’ by Gerald Strauss, Past and Present, 141 (Oxford, 1993), 207-215.

 

Bordo, S., The Creation of Anne Boleyn (New York, 2013).

 

Fletcher, B., ‘Why “The Tudors” is hilarious historical bunk’, The Telegraph, 01 August 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk.

 

Liddington, J., ‘What is Public History? Publics and Their Pasts, Meanings and Practices’, Oral History, 30 (2002), 83-93

 

Strauss, G., ‘The Dilemma of Popular History’, Past and Present, 132 (Oxford, 1991), 130-149.

 

Wilkinson, J., Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII’s Favourite Mistress, (New York, 2009).

 

 

 

 

---

^[1] W. Beik, rev., ‘The Dilemma of Popular History’ by G. Strauss, Past and Present, no. 141, (Oxford, 1993), p. 208

^[2] G. Strauss, ‘The Dilemma of Popular History’, Past and Present, no. 132, (Oxford, 1991), p. 130

^[3] Beik, op. cit., 208

^[4] W. Beik, rev., ‘The Dilemma of Popular History’, p. 210

^[5] Ibid ., 215

^[6] I. Aird, ‘The Death of Amy Robsart’, The English Historical Review, vol. 71, no. 278, (Oxford, 1956), p. 69 - 70

^[7] A. Weir, The Life of Elizabeth I, (London, 1998), p. 109

^[8] B. Fletcher, ‘Why The Tudors is Hilarious Historical Bunk’, The Telegraph, 01 August 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk

^[9] S. Bordo, The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England’s Most Notorious Queen, (New York, 2013), p. 205

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Ibid.

^[12] L. Barnett, ‘A Medieval Historian’s View on The White Queen’, The Guardian, 24 June 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/

^[13] J. Wilkinson, Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII’s Favourite Mistress, (London, 2011), p. 67