Anyone know anything about this book?

[Kevlar]

I picked it up for $1 today at a garage sale. I figured it might make a good reference book. A New History of Great Britain, Shortened Edition, by R.B. Mowat. I figured that since it was published by Oxford, it should be good. It was, however, printed in 1930, first edition 1928, so it might have some misinformation that has been rectified or questioned in the last 81 years.

Anyone know anything about this book? Is it reputable? Accurate? Anybody know when the unshortened version was first printed?

Also, if this is the inappropriate forum, go ahead and move it.

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

I think you're going to have a hard time finding information, even book stores that sell it lack a description. I did find this though;

"Mowat was brought up in Oxford, where his father, RB Mowat, taught history at Corpus Christi College. Mowat senior wrote many books, the most successful and popular being his History of Great Britain. In 1928 the family moved to Bristol, when RB was appointed Professor of History at Bristol University. There can be no doubt that the father's interest in contemporary history (he was an ardent advocate of the League of Nations) rubbed off on the son."

- Source.

I guess it sounds credible, but with time we learn more about the past. 80 years is a long time, so I'm sure you could find more complete modern resources.

 

[Kevlar]

I guess it sounds credible, but with time we learn more about the past. 80 years is a long time, so I'm sure you could find more complete modern resources.

Thanks, and I agree, but at a buck it seems a good buy. At worst its a cheap antique, at best its a good reference. Starting to read it and one thing that's funny is how impartial it is for the standards of the time, but it would never be impartial enough by today's standards as a reference book. The author says certain things about certain cultures being barbarous and about Rome removing evil traditions from Britain and Britain removing evil traditions from India. And says that Rome "had not occupied Britain through lust for territory, but simply the inevitable expansion of a strong, orderlyy government over the undeveloped and disorderly peoples on its frontier.... The Saxon conquest of Britain, on the other hand, was inspired by no other ideals than the desire for new land, for plunder, and perhaps adventure.... The period of Saxon conquest was a great decline from the strength and orderliness, the justice and educative efforts, of the Roman rule." And so on.

I don't like how briefly it talks about pre-Roman Britain either. A quick explenation of the Iberians and the Celts, a quick and dirty description of ancient British villages, basic geography, and even more basic religion (their religion was savage, says the author, and there was so much human sacrifice and torture. Oh and only Druids could cut mistletoe. Basically all he tells you.) All this is done in two pages and then on to the Invasions of the Romans. Oh well, I spent my dollar I'll pick out all the interesting bits. And it does have those.

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

It sounds like it could be a good character resource more than anything. It obviously won't really give you a real insight to the cultures and traditions that the author is biased against, but what about the author himself? There might be some good lessons in how to develop characters' attitudes towards other people, in a setting where cultures are separate to each other.

 

[Chilari]

The Roman invasion of Britain was largely inspired by politics, Claudius needing a decent military victory to prevent his Praetorian Guard from stabbing him in the back or else the plebs rising up against him. There's more to it than that of course, but let's not go into that.

In terms of the book you bought, I'd be wary. Intellectual thought, not to mention archaeological practice, has advanced so far in the last 80 years as to make that book obsolete. To give an example, I've got a book about the history of beekeeping, 2nd edition from 1951 (first edition 1931) which I got for my dissertation (bees and beekeeping in the ancient world), and every few pages I come across something which is laughably wrong. He gives dates for an Egyptian pharoh some thousand years before he is now thought to have lived, concluded that the ancients used hives of perishable materials because none had been found archaeologically (now there are hundreds of sherds and a fair number of complete ceramic hives, not to mention a sizable apiary in Israel from the 9th century BC), and informed his quaint English beekeeper readers that the Greeks used remarkably primitive hives, nothing nearly as advanced as modern hives. Granted, the Greeks had hives that were less advanced than certain other mediterranean civilisations, but he doesn't give any credit to the Romans, assuming they simply followed Greek practice because, naturally, Romans can only copy, not invent - another outdated assumption based upon the supposed purity of Greek art and the apparent inability of Roman sculptors to do anything but prudice inferior copies, this itself now being questioned. But I have gone way off track here. Put simply, don't trust anything academic which is that old. Academia advances swiftly.

I was just about to look at my window sill/bookshelf to see which academic books I might recommend, but then I remembered that I sent almost all of my books home with my parents because I'm moving out next week. (This, unfortunately, included some books it later emerged I would need, like Homer's Odyssey and Virgil's Aeneid, but the uni library has them so no bother.) In any case, I can suggest the following:

Barry Cunliffe's Iron Age Britain. Cunliffe is the authority on pre-Roman northwest Europe, and iron age Britain in particular. Roughly half of his publications look in detail at some hillfort or another, and he has a LOT of publications. He knows what he's talking about, and this being such a definitive volume, you might even find it in your local library. Certainly would in the UK, not so sure about Canada.

Oh and if you're intending to use the term "Celts", take a read of Simon James' The Atlantic Celts : ancient people or modern invention? first. A very interesting discussion which basically points out that the Romans used the term Celts to group a load of barbarians from one part of the world, and that what we call Celtic culture is in fact an artistic style called La Tene culture which just so happened to spread across a large geographical area encompassing dozens or perhaps even hundreds of different tribal groups, each culturally distinct. The term was reinvented in the 17th century and sort of got tagged onto Irish and Scottish history, though if there ever was a tribe called the Celts, they certainly weren't anywhere near the British Isles. What people call Celtic designs actually have origins in Viking, Gallic and Anglo-Saxon traditions, from the post-Roman period. But I've gone off on one again.

David Mattingly's An Imperial Possession from 2006 is the book you're looking for for Roman Britain. I'll admit to being a touch biased in his favour because he's currently my personal tutor for my masters degree, but he really knows what he's talking about. I found his module on Roman Britain, examining regional variation across the country in Rome's attitude towards the natives and vice versa, very interesting and enlightening, and if you want to know anything about the Roman military in Shropshire and Cheshire (such as the forts at Wroxeter and Chester) please, just ask - I did an assignment on that for which I received one of my best marks, and one of the top marks in the class.

For the immediate post-Roman period and early medieval, Matthew Innes' Introduction to early medieval Western Europe, 300-900 : the sword, the plough and the book. Granted, it covers more than just Britain, but Britain was very much becoming part of Europe at that time and it's best considered in the wider landscape.

I don't really know about anything later than that, having never studied later than 1066 in any detail (well, I sort of know about the Peninsular Wars, but only because of Sharpe), but I'm sure someone else who knows what they're talking about can help. Sorry for such a long reply.

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

There's more to it than that of course, but let's not go into that.

The perfect deflection! But seriously, I agree with you for the most part. 1930 doesn't sound like a long time ago, but the rate at which humanity progresses makes it seem almost ancient. Other sources will be better, but don't let it put you off! As I said before, there are other things to learn from a text other than history, so use it as best you can.

 

[Ravana]

Mowat was a respected historian in his time, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything... considering how chauvinistic the bulk of writers (historians in particular) were during that time period. On the other hand, he could be an exception: I don't know either way. And though there isn't a Wikipedia page for that name, if you read down the list of entries that does mention it, you find that he was also very broad in scope... or at any rate that they were, since there were a father and son with the same name.

One thing I would say is that I'm always somewhat distressed by the notion that the farther removed we are from a given time period, the more accurate our view of it is. While it's certainly true that distance allows for greater ability to collect from diverse sources (and sometimes, though hardly always, allows for greater objectivity), and while new research does turn up forgotten knowledge from time to time, especially in terms of anthropology, it seems to be taken for granted any more that old sources are automatically unreliable. At least unless they're unknown, that is: find one thing that contradicts "accepted" knowledge, and it seems as though you're given a license to totally rewrite history, sometimes. I have nothing against seeking to expand knowledge of the past (far from it: and in particular, I love archaeology)... it just bugs me when I see someone saying how we can't "trust" Tacitus, or Suetonius, or Pliny (either of them)--when that someone is relying on some other source that's every bit as old, and almost certainly every bit as partisan.

In fact, one of the great delights of my life was when, after generations of "historians" dismissed Julius Caesar's account of the Battle of Alesia, claiming variously that it couldn't have taken place where he said it did, or how he said it did, or that the armies couldn't possibly have been as large as he said they were, and that in any case archaeology from the purported site (as well as a few other candidates) didn't reveal any evidence it had taken place at all... aerial photography found exactly the site he described, exactly where he he said it was, exactly as large. And considering that this was the most "far-fetched" thing to appear in his annals (if you aren't familiar with the battle, you'd have to read the description: you won't be inclined to believe it at first, either)--well, so much for the "unreliability" of that source, eh?

Yes, that proves that new discoveries can enlighten our view of the past. On the other hand, it also proves that at least sometimes all they do is confirm what we're told by the people who were there in the first place, as opposed to those writing hundreds or thousands of years after the event... or digging that much later. So don't count Mowat (either of them) out, at least not until you have good reason to.

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

Perhaps it's better to say that our view is more 'educated' with time, rather than 'accurate'. I think growing to better understand history, historical cultures, and people (like the 'evil' barbarians) makes us more objective. I don't mean that Mowat is wrong, just a slave to context.

 

[Chilari]

Johnny you have put it most succinctly.

Generally though, Ravana, it's nt the reliablility of facts that is under question in modern scholarship, but rather whether we can take what is said at face value. Continuing to use Caesar as an example, while it seems his account of Alesia is accurate, his selection of which events to record, and how to record them, is influenced by what he wishes to achieve. He claimed to have defeated "the Britons", for example. He certainly didn't defeat them all - he barely infiltrated any distance inland at all, probably won a few skirmishes, got some gifts from some local kings, and jumped on his boat back to Gaul. The Britons living in, say, what is now Shropshire were probably unaware that he even landed, or even that he existed; he certainly never made it that far. The Gallic Wars was a politically motivated account which gained him popularity among the people and the senate, eventually leading, through a number of other things, to him being named Imperator. his account may, in general, have been factually accurate, but in terms of presentation and structure, of what he chose to include and what he skipped over, and the language he chose to use to describe the events, he had a goal in mind. Others, too, wrote with particular bias.

One of the foremost approaches in archaeology at the moment is to accept that EVERYONE is writing with a particular bias, from Caesar and Suetonius to Cunliffe and Mattingly. Everyone has political ideals, views on religion and morality, opinions about human nature, and so on, and it is impossible to write anything without allowing them to influence you. Generally modern historians try to recognise what their personal biases are and explore ideas which go outside those views, and look objectively at the evidence. Complete objectivity of course is impossible; we are by nature subjective. But recognising that subjectivity and bearing it in mind when studying the past enables us to approach objectivity if never quite touch it.

Also generations of archaeologists have learned and now no longer make definitive conclusions where evidence is lacking, but rather qualify it with "pending further excavation". For example, at present it appears that the Romans did not generally use ceramic beehives, because there is no known archaeology of them and Varro told them not to, whereas there are known ceramic beehives from Greece and Spain. But I'm not about to say that the Romans didn't use ceramic beehives in the conclusion of the dissertation chapter I am currently meant to be writing because an excavation at a rural villa next year might turn up loads of ceramic hives and prove me wrong; rather I am suggesting that it is a possibility, though excavations in Italy have not generally focussed on rural sites, that identification of beehives is still in the early stages, and that since coarsewares are generally ignored by excavators there may well already be some that simply haven't been identified as being beehives because nobody has studied them or because they don't have particular markers that are, in other regions, associated with beehives.

 

[Ravana]

Generally though, Ravana, it's nt the reliablility of facts that is under question in modern scholarship, but rather whether we can take what is said at face value.

Well, in good scholarship, at least: I've seen plenty of poor scholarship (as well as a fair share of patent idiocy) with 21st century copy dates, and tons of it with copy dates post-1980.

I don't deny that, on the whole, our knowledge of history is greater than it was 100 years ago... if for no other reason than that I have yet to encounter any historian writing at that time who was even attempting to be "objective" (though many claimed they were--you'd actually have a better chance of finding more objective sources from twice as long ago), and very few were so much as considering the possibility that sources originally written in a non-European language could possess any value at all. What nags me is the reverse-chauvinism that's developed: the belief that we know so much more, and so much better, than our predecessors that of course whatever they recorded can't be trusted. Especially if one can find a single error (or omission, or speculation, or unverified traveler's tale, or outright lie) in a text: ah, then you can throw the whole thing out.

Continuing to use Caesar as an example, while it seems his account of Alesia is accurate, his selection of which events to record, and how to record them, is influenced by what he wishes to achieve. He claimed to have defeated "the Britons", for example. He certainly didn't defeat them all - he barely infiltrated any distance inland at all, probably won a few skirmishes, got some gifts from some local kings, and jumped on his boat back to Gaul. The Britons living in, say, what is now Shropshire were probably unaware that he even landed, or even that he existed

Nor he them, though he no doubt inferred the entirety of the island (however much that was, which he also may have had a very vague concept of) was inhabited. On the other hand: he did defeat "the Britons"--just not all of them. Probably, he defeated all the ones he met... and since his standard for comparison was Gaul, where tribes gathered from far and wide across the province(s), he might have felt he'd defeated all the ones that mattered. I consider this unlikely, given how clever he was, and how knowledgeable of frontier provinces and military matters in general; on the other hand, would you say he didn't defeat "the Germans" solely on the basis of having never engaged all the Germanic tribes? Or perhaps he was sufficiently ill-informed concerning what the island's inhabitants self-identified as that he may have thought he had defeated all the "Britons," though he knew full well he hadn't defeated all the peoples of the island. (And before you take a stab at responding to that, consider what sources are available to you to base a claim on what the people did call themselves at the time: which Roman's word would you like to take for that?)

All writers select what to record and how to record it. (I doubt that's news around here... at least I hope it isn't. Though I'm continually astonished at the number of people in general who--perhaps willfully--ignore this.) Awareness of one's own subjectivity isn't something we should assume is a purely modern phenomenon: that, too, is part of today's chauvinism. And the thing that, I guess, irks me the most is the notion that in no case did it ever happen that, just perhaps, "what [some ancient author] wished to achieve" was objectivity--in the face of his own known prejudices and those of others around him. But why not? Julius Caesar was perhaps one of the most ambitious men ever to have lived... but a huge part of that ambition revolved around wanting Rome to enjoy continued success. Wouldn't the best way to do that be to accurately chronicle one's own experiences, so that others could learn from them? I'm not claiming he did--and I'd be surprised if he didn't use his writing for his own political benefit in some way: again, he was just too clever, almost certainly had to have been aware of the potential for doing so, and was unlikely to neglect it--only that it's a mistake to casually dismiss the possibility. (Besides, given his successes, he could have told the unvarnished (and unredacted) truth, and would hardly have suffered in so doing... which, admittedly, is an advantage few other historians have ever possessed.)

One of the foremost approaches in archaeology at the moment is to accept that EVERYONE is writing with a particular bias, from Caesar and Suetonius to Cunliffe and Mattingly. Everyone has political ideals, views on religion and morality, opinions about human nature, and so on, and it is impossible to write anything without allowing them to influence you.

Which is precisely where I see the danger (as well as most of the patent idiocy I see published--where an author assumes that he understands his sources' bias, when all he's really doing is assigning his own negative biases to sources who disagree with him). Because it is possible to suppress these things... if not completely, than nearly so. In spite of the vast amount I've written on this site, for instance, I highly doubt anybody could come to accurate conclusions about my political ideals, the bulk of my moral views, or many of my opinions about human nature, and I'd be flat-out astonished if anyone could come to accurate conclusions about my religious views. Hell, until a few days ago, there were probably still people here who couldn't accurately identify my gender (and may still not know, unless they saw the post where I finally mentioned it): at any rate, I had people sufficiently mystified about the matter that I was addressed by both pronouns in the beginning. (I imagine that most wouldn't have been able to tell you what country I was from, either, for a good while, and there are probably a great many that would still have difficulty pegging my age within... oh, half a decade? I'd go higher, but the spread itself constitutes a hint.)

And, honestly, I haven't taken any particular pains to hide any of this: even using "spouse" rather than a gender-based term is second nature to me any more. But I write with an awareness geared toward education: if I have an agenda, it's to help others learn. As a result, I do suppress my own opinions most times, usually label them clearly where they occur (unless context makes it obvious: yes, what I put for "favorite song" really is my favorite song... and I really do find Chinese opera appalling), often take a position I don't support solely for the purpose of making sure it doesn't get overlooked. Am I perfect? I should certainly hope not, nor do I deceive myself that I am always avoiding injecting my own biases. (One of those, after all, is that I believe people ought to learn; another is that they ought to think analytically, and consider as many aspects of a question as they can inform themselves about.) But consider how much I qualify the things I say, in most cases, even in a discussion such as this. I can also tell you this much: I can go, and have gone, farther in suppressing my biases than I do routinely... I would speculate that if I genuinely didn't want you to be able to tell what way I leaned on a given question, you wouldn't have a hope of ferreting it out from my writing. That comes from being a self-aware writer, though, not a self-aware 21st-century writer.

So, no, don't take any source purely at face value--present company very much included. (I love the looks on students' faces when I tell them "Never just take anyone's word for anything"... and then wait for them to realize that if they were to follow that instruction, they'd be violating it.) But also don't assume it can't be taken at face value until you have a reason not to. And be very wary when that "reason" is some equally antique source that happens to agree better with what you'd like your research conclusions to be. Or, worse, some secondary source writing long after the authors of the primary ones are dead, who is claiming to be able to decide between them based on nothing more than "clarity of hindsight." That's where I see the things that irritate me most.

Also generations of archaeologists have learned and now no longer make definitive conclusions where evidence is lacking, but rather qualify it with "pending further excavation".

Again, the good ones do: and again, there are still many who dig up some artifact, project upon it what they want to see, and make sweeping statements with which, I assume, they hope to establish their "reputations." If you haven't encountered this, even among contemporary archaeologists, you've been extraordinarily fortunate.