Do you have a favorite....

[BronxBriar]

work on historiography or the philosophy of history?

I'm asking becasue I am re-reading R. G. Collingwood's The Idea of History. The book started out as a series of lectures he wrote in 1936. I first read it in 1981 and it is still favorite of mine. It remains a thought provoking and fruitful resource, especially when he covers the nature, object, method, and value of the historical enterprise.

Here's a link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192853066/qid=1123518065/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1842203-5330369)

[livius drusus]

It's not a work dedicated to historiography, but the introduction to Norman Davies Europe: A History (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060974680/qid=1123516434/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-3790989-8420034) is an eye-opening analysis of how historians have constructed the notion of European history.

[BronxBriar]

It's not a work dedicated to historiography, but the introduction to Norman Davies Europe: A History (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060974680/qid=1123516434/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-3790989-8420034) is an eye-opening analysis of how historians have constructed the notion of European history.

Thanks for that! I know I've read something by Davies, but I will definitely take a look at that.

[livius drusus]

I think Davies is a great writer, and his approach to wide overviews is uniquely absorbable.

The main issues he raises in the intro is how the very definition of Europe -- which countries qualify at what times -- is politically constructed, and how historians either generate it or play along with it. It's been ages since I read it, though, so I'll check it out tonight when I get home to give you a better idea.

[HighOnHotSauce]

Thanks for the links both of you. Europe: A History seems quite interesting. My knowledge European history is quite limited. I’ll have to add it to my “one of these days I’ll get around to reading this” list.

[livius drusus]

It's huge, Hot Sauce. Seriously ginormous. Still, one of the remarkable things about Davies' writing is that he structures the book so you can skip around, use it as a glossary-like reference, or read it cover to cover.

IOW, even if you never do get around to reading the whole thing, it's a book very much worth having because you can learn piles about European history just by flipping pages and what I can only describe as the book version of link-surfing.

[HighOnHotSauce]

Still, one of the remarkable things about Davies' writing is that he structures the book so you can skip around, use it as a glossary-like reference,
, even if you never do get around to reading the whole thing, it's a book very much worth having because you can learn piles about European history just by flipping pages and what I can only describe as the book version of link-surfing.
Now, that is my kind of book!!!!

[Legs]

I almost went blind reading this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275957551/ref%3Dnosim/dannyyeesbook-20/104-7006672-5928765)

It is from the late 90's but I found it well done. Macrohistory and Macrohistorians: Perspectives on Individual, Social, and Civilizational Change

It is not light reading by any stretch :eek:

[BronxBriar]

I almost went blind reading this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275957551/ref%3Dnosim/dannyyeesbook-20/104-7006672-5928765)

It is from the late 90's but I found it well done. Macrohistory and Macrohistorians: Perspectives on Individual, Social, and Civilizational Change

It is not light reading by any stretch :eek:

That looks like something I could sink my teeth into. Sadly, it's a tad on the expensive side.

[godfry n. glad]

No, I don't.

I see I'll have to actually sit down and read parts of Davis' Europe: A History.

I do have a recommendation for ancillary reading to a good historiography book, though. James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle authored a little book of "case studies" as a means of discussing historiographic methods, entitled After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection. They have a superlative section on the decision to drop the Atomic bomb on Japan.

I do have in hand Alun Munslow's Deconstructing History, The Varieties of History by Fritz Stern, The Pursuit of History by John Tosh, and Eric Hobsbawm's On History. Of them, I've only started the first, which I found mind-numbingly dull. Any recommendations on the others is welcome, I bought most at yard sales.

Also of interest and a fun read is David Hackett Fischer's Historian's Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought.

[Adora]

Does Foucault count?

[John Carter]

I am partial to Will and Ariel Durant. The Lessons of History is a must read for anyone who is intersted in this topic. It was originally written as a companion volume to their massive 11 volume The Story of Civilization which is the most complete and comprehensive European History I am aware of. Well, complete as far as it goes; it ends with the Age of Napoleon.

Each volume can stand alone if you want to cover a specific period; there is no need to read the previous volumes. I highly recommend you read them all, though that can literally take a year or more if you let real life or the net or anything else other than food or sleep intrude. They are:

Our Oriental Heritage
The Life of Greece
Ceasar and Christ
The Age of Faith
The Renaissance
The Reformation
The Age of Reason Begins
The Age of Louis XIV
The Age of Voltaire
Rousseau and Revolution
The Age of Napolean

[BronxBriar]

Does Foucault count?


Absolutely!

[inland wave]

Actually no, but there is a book coming out spring of 2006 that has caught my interest. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is writing a book about religion and international politics. I don't know if this is the working title or the actual title "The Mighty and the Almighty:God and Religion in American Foreign Policy." I am very interested in her personal analysis of this subject and possibly she will give her prespective on the present crisis ( Iraq) .

[Adora]

Does Foucault count?
Absolutely!
Oh, okay. Then does Baudrillard count? If he doesn, he's my #1, and Foucault's a close 2nd.

[Blake]

Does Foucault count?
Absolutely!
Oh, okay. Then does Baudrillard count? If he doesn, he's my #1, and Foucault's a close 2nd.I wouldn't say Foucault counts for much. He's been subject to some withering criticism for historical inaccuracies, though I think such criticism has largely missed the point of Foucault's philosophical explorations. It's fair enough to the extent that the history of ideas has not in fact followed paths Foucault traced.

That macrohistory reader, on the other hand, that looks pretty solid for a single volume! I hope I can find it used.