What Is History?

.This superb old book is a thoughtful attempt to define the study of history and historiography. Carr's basic thesis is that people's opinions change throughout their life times, are maleable, and depend on what is going on in the world at any given moment.The following quote from the book sums up the author's thesis nicely:......"I am fully aware that, if anyone took the trouble to peruse some of the things I wrote before, during, and after the war, he would have no difficulty at all in convicting me of contradictions and inconsistencies at least as glaring as any I have detected in others. Indeed, I am not sure that I should envy any historian who could honestly claim to have lived through the earth-shaking events of the past fifty years without some radical modifications of his outlook. My purpose is merely to show how closely the work of the historian mirrors the society in which he works. It is not merely the events that are in flux. The historian himself is in flux. When you take up a historical work, it is not enough to look for the author's name on the title page: look also for the date of publication or writing--it is sometimes even more revealing. If the philosopher is right in telling us that we cannot step into the same river twice, it is perhaps equally true, and for the same reason, that two books cannot be written by the same historian." (Carr 51-52).The book was written in 1961 but is bright and sparkling and applicable to our own generation's thinking and perceptions.Kim BurdickStanton, Delaware

It’s a great introduction to the discipline of history for newbies without getting too technical or philosophical.

E. H. Carr's classic gives a precise and succinct analysis of the nature of History, both as a discipline and a way of thinking. His rejection of empiricism is persuasive and constructive to the understanding of historical views. The key theme of progress (or changes, in a more neutral way) is undoubtedly the pillar of History. Carr's call for a more inclusive approach to history is remarkable. In my opinion, his alarming warning on the parochialism prevalent in Britain greatly improved the perception of other peoples and cultures in the English-speaking world. A must-read for all.

Though published more than forty years ago, this book has contemporary relevance. A series of lectures given by the author at Cambridge University, it covers topics such as "The Historian and His Facts" and History as progress." The author rejects the notions of Hegal and Marx that history automatically has transcendent meaning. On the other hand neither it it series of random events. He tells us that all history is rinsed through the background filters of those who write it. Therefore "revisionist history" is not an occasional accident produced by over zealous observers, it is the only kind of history available to us. This a good read, perhaps marred slightly by over generalizations. The group discussion in which I participated was simulating.

Carr has a clarity and wit that recognizes the perils of historical writing and I found this book very illuminating. I've not read anything else by him, but he's a marvelous analyst.

I remember this book from when I was in college and have spoken about it a lot over the years. I didn't realize I gave my copy to a friend so I ordered another one. Fabulous book!

Edward Hallet Carr makes a great contribution to meta-history by producing this book. He uses examples from antiquity until his contemporary time to critique the way the craft of history has been undertaken. He offers great examples and a great structure for both the book and his argument. I had to read this for a graduate class but had I known it was as good as it was I would have picked it up well beforehand.

In 1859 Marx wrote publicly that "people make history" while at the same time writing privately that "the dialectic makes history"- Childe chooses the former in a necessarily circumspect analysis

This slim volume - the essays themselves take up only 150 pages - has cast a long shadow over the practice and understanding of history in the sixty-odd years since Carr's lectures were first committed to print. Richard Evans provides a robust and often critical Introduction, but even he concedes that Carr played an important role in opening up the topic of what constitutes 'history' to a wider audience.Reading these essays again, for the first time in over half a century, I was pleasantly surprised. Insightful, fresh, written with great aplomb and an almost journalistic ease of expression (Carr was briefly Assistant Editor of 'The Times'), provocative and entertaining, studded with effortlessly erudite references - they are all these things and more.The first four offer the best of what Carr has to say, dealing in turn with the use and presentation of facts, the impossibility of separating individuals from their society (or vice versa), the relationship of history to science, and problems about causation in history. But the wheels are already starting to come off his bus. For example, he starts to argue, rather unconvincingly, that only some types of causation are important for the historian, and he dodges a serious exploration of determinism and its importance or otherwise for historical enquiry.By the last two essays he is ploughing blithely along his own path through a tangle of contentious issues. In the fifth essay 'History as Progress', he dismisses such teleological approaches to the past as the Whig interpretation of history, yet he wants to stake out his personal belief in progress as the unfolding story of man's enhanced awareness and mastery of the world. He even asserts (bizarrely to my mind) that 'history properly so-called can be written only by those who find and accept a sense of direction in history itself'. By the time we reach his final essay 'The Widening Horizon' it has become obvious that he is attempting to rise above what he sees as the pessimism of his own society (this is 1961) by offering us a more optimistic outlook on change. History has thus become a prop on which to rest his personal hopes for the future. It is hard not to see behind this attitude an attempt to set himself up as an apostle of the future, bolstered by his sincere (though not uncritical) belief in the Marxist analysis of society, the economy and history.As Richard Evans explains, Carr was planning to revise the book but died in 1982 before he could do so. It seems clear from what Carr left behind, however, that he was not intending to alter his original arguments, simply to augment and recast them. Looking back from 2022 it is all too clear that Carr's book remains a classic worthy of study but that it belongs very firmly - a fact he would have understood - to the long-vanished era in which he wrote it.

At university, I had a compulsory module on Historical theory and I didn't do very well in that course (In fact, I failed it miserably). I put this down to the fact I just didn't understand it.Now, after preparing for my PGCE year, I am reading this book and it is giving me a whole different idea into historical theory - I now fully understand certain aspects of historical theory and although it may have words you have to look up (quite archaic use of some words), it is so easy to read and to understand.I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to further enhance their knowledge of historical theory.I also found the first chapter very interesting.

Superb and as relevant as ever. What’s very good is that the forward sections analyse the work before you reach it. The scene is nicely set. The conflict between Carr and his critics is clearly described. This helps give the text more relevance when you get there. The preface to the second edition is also very revealing. A superb work which outlives the author - like all good historical works.

Classic must read. Carr’s own maxim applies - know the historian to understand his history.

This book is needed if you are studying architecture, but it makes no sense at all. worst book i have had to force my self to read.