What is History?

And other essays

By Michael Oakeshott

Edited by Luke O'Sullivan

Imprint Academic - £30.00

There is a branch of study, which goes by the name of Historiography, which makes it its business to examine the methods of research employed by Historians, and in the end to deduce some general principles about the writing of history […]. Historiography is a comparatively young study, and consequently one looked upon with some suspicion by professional historians – especially in England. 'Why can't youwrite history, instead of writing about history?' they ask, and are apt to be impatient of those, perhaps naive, gentlemen who prefer to consider the question whether it is possible to write history at all.

('History is a Fable')

Men, it appears, took to the study of the past, just as they took to the study of the natural world, without misgiving; and they seem often to have assumed that there was no alternative to the manner of thought they found themselves employing. Subsequent reflection, however, revealed that this was not the case, and the manner of scientific and historical activity has come to be modified by the consideration that has been given to the general organizing ideas of these enterprises.

('The Whig Interpretation of History')

The degree to which history repeats itself, whether deemed definitive by historians, historiography or the quasi-philosophical accumulation of subsequent reflection, is without any unsurprising doubt whatsoever, unquestionable. What is questionable however, is the degree to which history can (and continues to be) allowed to be socially as well politically distorted and manipulated.

To such a revolting degree in fact, that the only thing which truly remains at the pinnacle of the social pyramid, is (quite often) idiosyncratic ignorance. Nothing more. And absolutely nothing less. There again, we are here talking about a literary intellect which belongs to Michael Oakeshott.

So while some might consider the thirty essays of What is History? and other essays as being rather angular in relation to history itself, not to mention the sciences, it still nevertheless, resonates both robustly and profoundly.

This this ought hardly be surprising, simply because Oakeshott almost always grabbed the academic mantle from that of a philosophical persuasion – thus allowing analyses to remain open to interpretation. Not to be confused with repetition (as in the manifestation of recent history repeating itself being allowed to snowball out-of-control): ''What has sometimes confused readers is that in Experience and its Modes Oakeshott still tended to see philosophy as superior to modes such as history, science, and 'practice' (our day-to-day attitude to the world). This distracted him from the ultimately more fruitful task of working out the logical presuppositions of the various modes, and lead him to speak of forms of thought such as history or natural science as 'arrests' in experience that were 'defective' just insofar as they fell short of being philosophical experience. (Introduction).

To my mind, Oakeshott's 'distraction' was our ultimate gain, because it allowed us to arrive at conclusions that might not otherwise have been dared – let alone considered even possible. Consider the very openness of the following for instance: ''Without pretending to be scientific about it, the world may be imagined to be a vast collection of existences – things and substances of various compositions and kinds – each of which is what it is, and moves, changes, grows, or decays as it does, by reason of its relation to other things ('Work and Play').

That these essays were originally intended for lectures and seminars, lends them an informal style; the result of which makes their occasional density all the more readable. Good on Luke O'Sullivan for bringing many of the e unpublished manuscripts to our attention.

David Marx

 This free site is ad-supported. Learn more
​