In many ways, Primo Levi’s The Periodic Table is a historical book. History and concepts relating to it are constantly addressed, and are closely intertwined with the larger autobiographical elements of the book. A concept that is frequently addressed throughout the book, directly and indirectly, is the writing of history and, in a broader sense, the historical method. An essential chapter to this discussion is “Iron.” Weaved into his stories of the chemical institute, Levi makes an important point about historical truth through his commentary on fascist propaganda, which was filled with the glorification and mythologization of history. Levi describes his aversion to heavy rhetoric because of this. To both him and Sandro, his friend at the …show more content…
The article looks at the Roman philosopher Cicero’s first law of history, which states that “the historian must not dare to tell any falsehood” (1), and the idea of historical truth and objectivity in modern thought. Assis mainly addresses the criticism of contemporary philosophers and historians, especially postmodernists, who argue that “extra-disciplinary, non-cognitive, interest-led, ideological, gendered, moral, rhetorical, or literary factors that strongly frame the production of historical knowledge” (2). The author defends Cicero’s first law by redefining it and arguing that it has a basis in epistemology and professional ethics. After putting forward several arguments, he eventually concludes that “Objectivity... does not stand in opposition to subjectivity—on the contrary, it is actually tied up with subjective dispositions, virtues, and skills that help shape responsible historiography” (1). His first argument is to redefine Cicero’s first law. Dismissing the interpretation of it as a radical rationalist statement, Assis argues that it can simply be seen as saying that “historians ought not to pass on as true what they know is untrue.” and “should shun the kind of partiality or animosity that could lead them to deliberately distort what they believe to be the truth, or omit inconvenient facts from their accounts of the past” (7). He expounds by explaining that “lying, either in history writing or in ordinary life, differs categorically from making a mistake” (7). By doing this, Assis shows that the first law does not necessarily discount natural human limitations and supports his thesis. Furthermore, Assis argues that the principle in question is essential to historiography and that “the very existence of serious historical research and writing is highly dependent on [its] effectiveness” (16). The principle of
Procopius of Caesarea was a scholar and contemporary historian from Palaestina, who wrote about the reign of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian during the time of 527-560 AD . One of the most interesting and important writing by Procopius is Anecdota or better known as “Secret History”. The Secret History was written around 550 AD and it includes Procopius’s true thoughts and criticisms of Justinian as a person and as an emperor.
...es are manipulated for his argument. Goldhagen’s controversial and stimulating study encourages research to continue and in 2013 Jewish leaders pressured Pope Francis to open the Vatican archives from 1939-1947. The opening of these archives will instigate more investigations in this field and until these archives are opened the historical record will not be clarified. The importance of these archives illustrates the interesting nature of historical literature. The study of history focuses predominantly around primary materials, however these materials do not provide a definitive depiction of the past. Historians analyze primary sources to deduce an interpretation of the past. The discrepancies between historian’s interpretations form historiographical debate. It would be interesting to examine the extent to which historians are perhaps just academic storytellers.
Primo Levi’s first job was at an asbestos mine in Turin, Italy in 1941. Levi was born Jewish and the degree he received on graduating his full time chemistry course from the University of Turin had written on it ‘Primo Levi, of the Jewish race.’ At a time when laws were being created that were specifically aimed at removing the writes of the Jewish race, it meant that finding a job was near impossible. Levi was offered his first job secretly under a new name with new papers. The “Quantitative analysis of rock samples” was Levi’s beginnings outside of university. Levi’s life is formed around the opportunities he gets to further his career. In the chapter of his book The Periodic Table, Nickel, Levi describes his first career path intermingled
In the preface to The Alexiad, Anna Comnena shows the purpose of undertaking the history of her father. She says "the tale of history forms a very strong bulwark against the stream of time…As many as history has taken over; it abides together" (Comnena 1). This statement clearly shows the importance of history writing. It also shows the particular rationale that motivated Anna to write the Alexiad. She argues that, the events of the past will in many times be lost: they should be preserved for future reference by diligent historians (Dalven 2). Anna puts into records the reign of her father to ensure that its memories survive. This explicitly stated intent, gives her recorded material credibility as compared to other historians. Her intimate relationship with the recorded subjects, for example, her mother and father; make her work serve a greater and more personal goal that any other Byzantine historian (Peterson 23). In addition to explicitly asserting her reason to preserve her father's...
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
The writer introduces his topic very clearly using different tools. He makes his work simple and easy to understand because he is directing his work to the public. Franklin’s use of organization is intended to make it easy for the reader to progress through time. In addition, he uses an informative tone to inform, not only to persuade, the reader; he wants his audience to draw their own conclusions. Moreover, he uses images to show his audience the affect of photos before and after the Industrial Revolution, and he shows two different images to compare. Franklin shows the wars without makeup as he says, “why not project the war from the point of view of the weapons?” (412).
In The Houses of History, many different schools of historical thought are presented and light in shed on what exactly it means to be those different types of historians. Not all historians think the same way or approach history from the same perspective, but some similar groups of thought have converged together and have formed the various types of historians that will be presented, such as empiricists, psychohistorians, oral historians, and gender historians. All of these groups can approach the same event or concept and look at them in an entirely different way simply due to the way the historical approach they are accustomed to views things.
All historians have biases and these biases shape the way the write history. Some authors write to promote an ideal while others write to educate the public and authors also differ in what aspects of history they write about. When reading any history text it is important to remember why the author wrote and what was important to them. An author like Jo-Ann Shelton writes history to educate people on the social history of Rome by using letters and inscriptions left from individual people, the authors of the fourth edition of A History of Rome write to educate college students on the political and economic history of Rome while occasionally discussing the culture in a traditional text-book format, and Suetonius wrote history to tell stories about the emperors and therefore discarded information unless it directly pertained to the single man he was focusing on. Jo-Ann Shelton places more emphasis on many different individuals as a way to accurately portray Roman history, the authors of A History of Rome place significantly less emphasis on many individuals but they still discuss different groups of people throughout the Roman Empire and various inscriptions, and Suetonius only discusses the emperors, and those who had an impact on their reign, in depth.
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
Cicero and Cato the Younger were the premier orators and statesmen that the Roman Republic produced. Both enjoyed political success within Rome during the waning years of the Republic. In addition, both were participants and witnesses of the collapse of the Republic. Before Caesar could gain full control over Rome, Cato committed voluntaria mors, voluntary death or more commonly known, suicide. After Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C.E., Cicero was murdered in 43 B.C.E. as he was placed on the proscription list during the triumvirate of Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus. Cato and Cicero were the defenders of the republic and in their eyes freedom as well. Following their deaths Cato enjoyed fame for his supposed martyrdom, such as Lucan’s Bellum Civile, while Cicero was lauded for his work on ethics, philosophy, and the ideal statesman. However, Cicero, not Cato, should be considered the martyr on behalf of the Republic and freedom due in a part to his insistence on maintaining the republic after the assassination of Caesar. Cato was the supposed martyr that Rome received but Cicero is the martyr Rome deserved and needed. To navigate this proposal a foundation of the concept of martyrdom is required. Secondly, define how the republic equates to freedom. Followed by the exploration how Cato is falsely elaborated upon and remembered as a martyr, and finally the illumination of why Cicero is the martyr the republic deserved.
The two Greeks Herodotus and Thucydides started the practice of reporting truth and personal knowledge of historical events above prose and poetry (vis-à-vis Homer), as well as removing much of the theological-centric content. The Roman historians that came after improved on this practice, particularly Tacitus, who used the better developed record-keeping of the times to write more concise, accurate histories with personal knowledge of the movers and shakers of the realm, both the senate and of the emperors. Tacitus’ style of history writing more closely resembles the ideal of what a historian should be, in quality, accuracy and freedom of personal idealism or slant.
Hermeneutic philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey thought that by examining history, we would be better able to understand people from the past. One objection could be that his theory implies that by knowing the external events at play in a person’s life, one would be able to understand that person and what they have written. I argue that Dilthey’s account works as long as one thinks of understanding as “seeing where one is coming from” rather than as “claiming to know how one feels.”
As Berger says, “the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms” (157). The upper class mystifies us to stay in control; without being able to see things in our own way, we are being deprived from our right to understanding ourselves and placing ourselves in a role of society.
The historians using the scholarly-scientific use of history are aware of two different concepts of classifying the phenomenon. The first one is setting the narrative phenomenon in question and the second one is the front-line of scholarship. Many scholars in Western societies make us of this approach because they are living in a liberal environment, where they can be relatively autonomous. In the communist countries of Eastern Europe, the state takes often advantage of professional historians for their purposes, mainly relating to promulgate ideological concepts. “Even after the fall of Eastern European Communism and the Soviet state, many historians have continued to perform political and ideological roles, nowadays in the service of various nationalist powers.”
This concept shall be discussed in relation to 4 explorations of Historical Understanding from the years 2000 to 2008. The Readings that have been included are: Van Boxtel and Van Drie's study into Historical Reasoning, Peter Seixas in the Centre for Historical Consciousness, Peter Lee in the International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research and Chapter 3 of Making History by Taylor and Young for the Curriculum Corporation.