'What Is History? And Gaddis'

Max Beerbohm once said, “History repeats itself. Historians repeat each other." Beerbohm’s quote completely differs from what historians do. Historian’s jobs are to study history of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon. Even though historians may look at same issues, each historian brings a particular knowledge to the issue that may have never been noticed previously; therefore Beerborhm’s quote can be challenged. One way to see the different viewpoints historians may have is by comparing historians work through their novels; two novels particularly stand out for comparison one by Howard Hallett Carr and the other by John Lewis Gaddis. Carr’s novel is called “What is History?” and Gaddis’ novel is “The Landscape of
Carr’s “What is History?” thoroughly discusses the relationship of history to other disciplines and what purpose it may serve for a historian to use other subject areas as a resource to further one’s knowledge, regarding a certain topic or area. The novel also narrows down on what subject history falls under, specifically if it is a social science or art. Carr strongly believed that history was a social science and not an art. His argument against history being an art is that like scientists, historians seek generalizations that help to broaden their subjects. Carr’s theory on historical generalizations is that they are often learned from other historical occurrences. Carr touches on why he believes history is not an art, but rather a social science. One specific example provided in “What is History?” is the definition of the word revolution (Carr, 22). He argued that it would be pointless for historians to write about revolutions if there wasn’t a clear universally understood definition of a revolution. He goes on to say that every revolution in history is individually unique and that to write about it wouldn’t be fair to revolutions (Carr, 23). Carr believed that history was more of a social science because events can be learned through history and that historians have never or will never be able to predict future events. Carr believed that the biggest reason why history is considered a science is because of comments denying moral judgments in history (Carr, 29). Carr argued that “ . . .individuals should be judged only in terms of the values of their time and place, not by the values of the historian’s time or place” (Carr,