Two valuable responses on "What is truth?"

From R. Cort Kirkwood:

What historians and writers can we rely on to tell the truth? Who are the ones who have done that research into and study of ancient or original texts? Those of us who are not professional scholars or wealthy men wouldn't have the time to learn Latin or Greek or even French to read original sources, much as we might like to, as even if we did, we may never achieve the proficiency in those languages to read original material anyway.

This is the fault of our culture and society and its education system, but until the day when we return to classical education and get our children on the right path, we must rely on men competent authorities.

And again, even if trying to consult original sources, say, on the American War for Independence, undertaking such a task would require time away from family and work that simply wouldn't be possible. We must be able to rely on honest historians' imparting the truth, but we need to know who they are. Those of us who not professional historians wouldn't know.

So, my questions might be these: If I were going to read a book about ancient Rome or Greece, where would I start? For instance, are Anthony Everitt's books on Caesar and Cicero any good? If I wanted to read about the Crusades, what books should I read? If I want to read about the War between the States, who are the reliable historians? In short, what's on the syllabus?

A suggestion, if I may: In the short term, perhaps TRI could ask those who have taught its courses and written for Chronicles to compile a list of books on these very subjects, and a variety of others, and post it here under "suggested reading," with links also from the articles on line. In the long term, perhaps TRI could prevail upon those same scholars and historians to offer distance learning courses, or packages like the one Dr. Fleming offers on the ancient world, with CD (or better yet, DVD) lectures and books, etc.

From Michael Ezzo:

I have no words of wisdom, but just want to send a hearty "Thank you" for the sobering and sincere response to that question about history. I've spent years looking for non-existent shortcuts to the knowledge that I failed to gain in the first three decades of my life. Your essay shows clearly that there is no quick and easy way. Thank you, once again, for your insight, and for exemplifying the virtues you mentioned in the final sentence.

It is probably not important enough a question to take much of your time, but I have always wondered why Belloc and Chesterton got the French Revolution so wrong. Is it that their populism trumped their religious beliefs? Hard to accept that in Belloc's case as he was no populist. Or was it that they didn't have access to the kind of historical revisionism that may have appeared subsequent to their deaths?

I admit that I have set an impossibly high standard even for fairly learned men and women. My point was to establish the ideal. Although there are no safe shortcuts, as Mr. Ezzo realizes, there are valuable secondary works of history and scholarship that can guide our readings and direct our minds. I recommended and continue to recommend older books that tend to be less dominated by the ironclad liberal/leftist ideology of the modern academy.

To take the case of the French Revolution, where I am a rank amateur, one should begin by having some basic narrative grasp of French history, preferably an older book. (I don't have a good one in mind but I shall ask competent people.) A decent and honest narrative of the events is provided by Hippolyte Taine, a major literary critic of the 19th century. (I reviewed the Liberty Press edition of a translation in the July 2003 Chronicles.) The scholarly works of François Furet are invaluable, though he could never shake his leftist inclinations entirely. Furet quite correctly recommends Alexis de Tocqueville and Augustin Cochin's writings as the most fundamental. Tocqueville's L'Ancient régime is available in English, but Cochin's researches (not complete when Cochin died fighting in WWI--one more cowardly and unpatriotic Frenchman) have not been translated until now. This summer we are bringing out an edition of Cochin translated by Anne Polin and introduced by her husband Claude Polin. This should be a start for you. I also recommend Sir Walter Scott's inaccurate but insightful Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, whose opening chapter is a brilliant sketch of the Revolution.

We are, in fact, working on a set of fundamental reading lists, subject by subject. Even if they are sketchy and inaccurate, they should be helpful. For my courses on ancient history and political thought, I drew up a rather full bibliography for students, both of ancient works and of modern interpretations. All I know about Anthony Everitt, I learned from reviews written by people who know little Roman history. He is apparently quite popular and lively, writing in a novelistic style and offering his own take on controversial issues. My instinct is to stay away but I'll try to check further.

To go back to my point about original sources, you can be sure, if you read an ancient historian, that even when they are wrong, their errors are part of a history of interpretation that should be learned. One might say the same of Gibbon. But where an Anthony Everitt or Michael Grant is wrong, they are simply wrong. Plutarch's "Cicero," short and easily available in print and online, would be a good place to start.

Dr. Thomas Fleming

Click here if you wish to submit questions for Dr. Fleming to answer for The Autodidact Blog.