tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post1742452768404725849..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: WHAT HISTORIANS DO -- CONTINUEDRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-90099820558844508512013-09-23T19:23:17.346-04:002013-09-23T19:23:17.346-04:00Anyway, Taine was a very great historian, a very i...Anyway, Taine was a very great historian, a very impressive mind and a huge scholar, and Cobban was insufferably dismissive. Doctor Singularis et Invincibilishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07498947639761749290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-49012847804022440982013-09-23T16:29:38.466-04:002013-09-23T16:29:38.466-04:00I intend to read Caryle’s volumes. And I am intere...I intend to read Caryle’s volumes. And I am interested in Babeuf’s ideas. Otherwise, my French Revolution is the one from the novels—Dumas and Dickens, that Colman adaptation.Doctor Singularis et Invincibilishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07498947639761749290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-33885597018912138082013-09-23T10:12:41.733-04:002013-09-23T10:12:41.733-04:00Curious. I would not have expected that from Cobb...Curious. I would not have expected that from Cobban. Lefebvre's great work on the revolution, by the way, is marvelous. The revolution seems to have inspired some really wonderful hisoriography, by people like George Rude and Donald Greer.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-34402157373879734712013-09-23T07:44:00.749-04:002013-09-23T07:44:00.749-04:00I once had the displeasure of reading a pamphlet a...I once had the displeasure of reading a pamphlet about Taine’s work as a historian of the French R., written by this Cobban; it was a dyspeptic and distasteful paper, patronizing and sour. It was a thing written towards the end of Cobban’s life, and published posthumously. A very unfair take.<br /> But Cobban’s revision of the standard understanding of the revolutionary events is very well—thought and worthy of reflection. <br />Doctor Singularis et Invincibilishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07498947639761749290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-58581484750603670212013-09-22T17:51:32.420-04:002013-09-22T17:51:32.420-04:00There is more to the story than I told. Lefebfre ...There is more to the story than I told. Lefebfre reviewed Cobban's pamphlet, and gave his response. It would take forever to reconstruct the entire debate. But speaking generally, you are of course right, and the good historians do just that.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-57153024009828723132013-09-22T15:47:45.846-04:002013-09-22T15:47:45.846-04:00Interesting story.
But once Cobban has offered hi...Interesting story.<br /><br />But once Cobban has offered his conclusion supported by his selection of evidence, doesn't Lefebvre have to look at that evidence and see if it is consistent with his theory?<br /><br />To put the point differently, it seems to me that in the situation you describe it's perfectly reasonable for different historians to come up with different conjectures, but that once they have shared the evidence on which those conjectures are based they ought, in principle and in time, to be able to come to agreement.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.com