A load of Tosh…

…or a book called The Pursuit of History by John Tosh. It never fails to amuse my tiny mind how author’s names can be seen as (admittedly lame) jokes on their chosen topic.

Prominently from one conspiracists’ viewpoint, Thomas Looney whose choice of Oxenforde as Shake-speare i would say is ‘looney’. But as they or anyone interested in the Historical truth will tell you, his name is pronounced ‘Low-ney’. So in a paragraph or so onto John Toesh’s book.

If you look at the rise of conspiracy theories related to Shakespeare historically, as Hank Whittemore is doing on his blog, favouring his candidate of course. You find that a contrary reading of History results in a favouritism in analysing the H/historical record.

Notwithstanding our own biases here at YLS. I stand behind the Historical record as to the identity of Shakespeare, until incontravertibly proven otherwise. And the number of good actors, judges, etc remains in favour of my candidate no matter how famous yours get. So nah nah na nah nah…

It behooves us then to look in a more adult way at what historically it all means.
Is it History with a big H, as it comes down to us and yet continuing as we live and breathe?
Or is it history with a little h, that is whatever we and others like us, want it to signify or not?

Hank’s blog is scholarly and impressively filled out with many scholarly-looking and sounding exposes of the Historical record as Historians see it. Their reading ever true to the central idea this dashing, romantic, Super-Earl wrote the lot. Why on earth would he? What is he, a literary Jesus?

The basic Post-Modern premise of his/her/our/story is that History can never fully define itself; without recourse to the greater, or more primary influences of the history of language and thought.

History then, now means it cannot exist outside the individual applying it here, in the present. Past, now, as writing turns to reading and i give up any claim to the words, or their truth, or their meaning, by publishing it.

This conundrum, and obviously in his book he explains it much better, means metaphorically beached up on the shores of History worldwide, Historians are left bellowing their legitimacy. But not so loudly that they should speak up when politicians take a slice of history and equate it to our times. Examples are profligate. Whether the media is manipulated or not, you be the judge.

Once again, thanks to the new technology things can never be the same again. This web is not a material world, dependent on yes, but entirely insubstantial. Yet it speaks volumes and its influence is for history to decide. I can change this text at any moment, whilst I am living. But once gone? I, to all the world must die, and my memory is these words.

I have nothing against anti-traditionalist, anarchic analysis. But don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. History doesn’t repeat itself, it cannot. History cannot be made, it can only be interpreted. History is bigger than the author, the politician, the economist, the social worker, or anthropologist. History is getting even bigger than the Historian.

And likewise many Historians remain unwilling to give up their academic objectivity by participating in political, economic, or social forums with CNN or BBC Worldwide. Which political commentator is not a small h, historian. Any connoisseur of any art form, or sport, or craft? Are they not in a sense an historian of that particular subject, be it hacky-sack or single malt-tasting.

Essentially History is memory. But is it individual or collective? And is there a difference? YLS can’t stand the fact, that facts are not facts, unless they are scientific, reproducible, and eternally verifiable facts.

Value facts are facts too. But value facts are open to interpretation. So the same fact can be manipulated to serve both extremes of the argument. A conspiracist and an orthodox look at the same Shakey topic produces diametrically opposed responses. Yet the central Historical fact or text of that fact remains.

How we choose to interpret History is then as personal as our thought processes. Go ahead change my mind or me change yours. Without co-ersion, threat, or torture you cannot, until i want to do so.

Unlike my ramblings on what history kinda sorta means to me, John Tosh neatly slides down occam’s razor’s edge (ouch)! in balancing his argument for distinction and preservation of the best of Historicism and an embracing of the influence of theory on Social memory and its influence on history.

Let’s not forget Philosophy killed God in the 19thC, language and Literary Theory killed the Author in the 20thC, and New Media killed History, which ended in 1992.

Welcome to the 21stC! Remember, back when the cyber-age began our Shakespeare was one of the first authors cruising the world wide web. I think the Aussies took the honour there mate. Collected works of course. Should find out what edition they used.

Actually I don’t think Shakespeare would have minded the questions raised by Theorists or being called a scriptor as Barthes coins it or an author-function as Foucault does.