J. W. Burrow (1935–2009)

I have just one regret at reading this ambitious survey of 2500 years of the practice of history—my only contact with almost all of the historians surveyed has been through this book. That's nothing against John Burrow, who admirably covers an enormous range of work here, without imposing any kind of strained overall narrative. But it does leave me thinking that it's a shame how dependent we've become on this kind of work. We're not going to read 20 ancient great historians, 10 more show more medievals, and 30-some more moderns, in their entirety... not in our lifetimes, most of us. I'll be lucky if I make it to the end of my twice-started Herodotus. So, until I win the lottery or buy that reading chair on my retirement, there are books like this. show less

After reading Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, what a delight to read about Gibbon in a mere 111 pages (harmonious with Gibbons under five foot stature). A short treatment about such a large subject as Gibbon and his work could have been a problem, but Burrow pulls it off. After an opening mini biography of Gibbons life, the remainder of the book is an overview of Decline and Fall: chapter titles include "Rome", "Christianity", "Barbarism" and "Civilization". The best chapter is show more "Civilization", it can be read as a standalone essay about Western history, it is full of fascinating ideas and insights. The last chapter "A possession in perpetuity" ties together some loose ends and has an interesting discussion on the nature of art and immortality. Any book of this nature has to rely heavily on quotes and because Gibbons writing is so powerful he can steal the show, but Burrow more than holds his own, the cadence between Burrow and Gibbon is sheer pleasure. Yet, as Burrow says:

"To present a vast historical work like the Decline and Fall as I have done, chiefly in terms of its organizing concepts and the explanations it offers, is necessarily to travesty it: to reveal the bones is to make hard, angular, dry and summary what in the experience of reading is enjoyed as flexible, rich and leisurely."(p.80)

The "bones" revealed by Burrow include Gibbon's stylistic device of black/white polarities underlying his arguments: Liberty/servility, vigor/enervation, manliness/effeminacy, simplicity/luxury, fanaticism/moderation, superstition/reason, theology/morality, asceticism/nature, unsocial/social and of course barbarism/civilization. This is not to say Gibbons has reduced history into a child-like "good vs bad" view, he does show ambiguity in human action, but his style or technique is to create polarities and then play off between those positions. This is an excellent work of historiography and intellectual history, I highly recommend it for anyone who has read Gibbon to better understand his context and ideas, Burrow treats Gibbon with a great deal of sympathy and the reader comes away with an even deeper appreciation and passion for the man and his work.

--Review by Stephen Balbach, via CoolReading (c) 2008 cc-by-nd show less

John W. Burrow is a professor of that somewhat orphaned discipline "history of ideas", or intellectual history. His earlier books include 'Evolution and Society: a study in Victorian Social Theory' (1966), 'A Liberal Descent: four Victorian Historians' (1981), which won the Wolfson Prize for History, 'Gibbon' (1984) and 'The Crisis of Reason: European Thought 1848-1914' (2000).

Burrow approaches 'A History of Histories' as an intellectual historian, and not a critic. That means you won't find show more critiques regarding historical accuracy. Instead Burrow emphasizes the general character of the historians achievement, relying on the work of specialized scholars and biographers: the biography lists many excellent "secondary" sources a few of which Burrow has relied heavily on. He is, in a sense, a popularizer of some the most important histories, his goal being to "give a sense of the experience of reading these histories and what may be enjoyable about them"; he assumes that you have not read or even heard of the works. Such an approach, which mixes interpretation and summary, allows Burrow to cover a great number of works across time - from Herodotus to the late 20th century - but at some cost: a reader may feel they understand the significance of a work, but a connected developing narrative seems unclear; and while there are many block quotes (in particular with the earlier authors), often one yearns for more of a taste of the work.

How can one create a narrative of a "history of histories"? Burrow examines the ideas of the past, and how today we stand in relation to those ideas as expressed in history books. These themes include the emerging conception of a distinct European identity contrasted with Asia; ideas of republican virtue in early Rome, supposedly corrupted by conquest and vice; the Bible's narrative of transgression, punishment and redemption; the idea of an early Germanic state of "freedom" as the ultimate basis for modern constitutional democracy; 19th century ideas of nationalism; 20th century divergences into many genres, none of which dominate.

At its best, 'A History of Histories' conveys the imaginative energies of some of the worlds most famous and important historians. Histories such as this really only matter if they send us off -- for the first or 10th time -- to read Gibbon's account of a Fall, Xenophon's travels through the desert or Parkman's epic of the New World. These works are kept alive because every new generation re-discovers their qualities, and that is why they still matter.

--Stephen Balbach, CoolReading ((c) 2008 by-nd) show less

really interesting...i'm definitely going to go and give those classics a look