There’s an idea that historians keep their noses stuck in old books detailing the facts of times past. But in a lecture held last Thursday in the CSS Lounge, one speaker said that historians also look to works of fiction.
In the second session of the history department’s “Conversations about the Craft of History” series, Associate Professor of History Cecilia Miller and Professor of History Vijay Pinch spoke about their own research and shared a few anecdotes.
Professor of East Asian Studies and History Vera Schwarcz hosted the event.
“As historians confronting the ever-changing face of the past, what are the questions that you allow yourself to bring to the table?” Schwarcz asked.
Miller illustrated her personal reflections about historical writing by recounting separate incidents that profoundly affected her thinking. Many of her anecdotes involved questions about history from strangers who unexpectedly changed her perspectives on the craft of historical writing. Once, when she was on a bus ride out of Mexico City, a Mexican engineer sitting next to Miller asked what her favorite history book was.
“I answered too quickly, and then was angry because the book I named was important in the social, political, and economic senses of history, but not in the intellectual,” Miller said. “But if you look at the texts in my history courses and my personal research, my interests really lie in intellectual history. The man beside me replied perhaps there was a reason that I answered as I did. This was my first intellectual surprise, and it led me to rethink my relations to intellectual history.”
Miller also commented on her personal research, as she specializes in 18th century European thought, principally on the philosophy of history, political and economical theories, and the philosophy of law. Her latest research focuses on the Enlightenment period and political fiction, focusing on such books as Cervantes’ “Don Quixote,” Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels,” and Voltaire’s “Candide.”
Whereas Miller used to consider such 18th century fiction merely as literature read for pleasure, she now recognizes the importance of fictional texts to the re-writing of history.
“We still study [fictional texts] because of their embedded political messages,” she said. “I believe that there is in every person a desire to debate political theory. They just don’t all get the chance to.”
Pinch, whose areas of expertise are South Asia under British imperial rule and the role of religion in history, spoke after Miller. He is particularly interested in the history of the “Naga sadhus,” or militant warrior ascetics, who are still important in the Indian nationalist imagination but have received relatively little intellectual attention.
Pinch called upon personal experiences to describe his changing views in historical interpretation. One epiphany he shared occurred while undertaking archival research for his new book, “Warrior Ascetics,” which will be in stores soon. Pinch uncovered East India Company records indicating an 1803 alliance between Naga sadhu leaders and Britain, which was a crucial step for the securing of British imperial control.
“These discoveries were a complete surprise and suggest multiple meanings to the politics of the Indian ascetic persona,” he said. “I was forced to reconsider my earlier interpretations.”
Pinch shared his experience touring a village in India where one of the more prominent ascetic leaders had lived. There he uncovered a surprising number of memorials to women, leading him to also reconsider the role of women in the Indian ascetic culture.
“These sites forced me to come to grips with the complexities of the ascetic in India,” Pinch said.
Julia McMillan ’06, a French studies and European history major who is writing a senior essay on medieval courtly love, was particularly interested in how historians use literary sources.
“How do you use fiction responsibly?” McMillan asked in the question-and-answer session after the lectures. “Romances used to be taken very seriously in their time, but now they’re just seen as silly. It’s important to look at fiction—it may not be real but it still says a lot about historical events.”
Schwarcz remarked on the challenge of discussing fictional texts in history.
“There is a prevailing feeling that fiction is ‘soft’ and history ‘hard,’ which is difficult to reconcile,” she said.
Pinch proposed a solution in what he calls “stapling ideas to peoples’ backs.”
“You might be nervous at first in tying historical interpretation to fiction, but once you find that connection, you have a crack that you can drive a truck through in terms of methodological analysis,” he said.