2 Historically Speaking » April 2002 John Lukacs Popular and Professional History The Path Between the Seas, die hitherto best history of the building of die Panama Canal, written by David McCullough, was published in 1977. In a widely adopted and best-sellingAmerican historytexdxx)kbytwo Harvard professors Freidel and Brinkley, America m the Twenttetb Century (1982), me bibliography lists McCullough's book widi diese words: "A lucid popular history ofdie building ofdie canal." "Popular history?" What kind ofnonsense this is. The Path Between the Seaswas not only well written; McCullough's research, reading, and scholarship were largely fauldess. This volume represented—indeed, demonstrated— just about all of die qualifications and die desiderata of a historian, and dien some— indeed, ofa professional as well as ofa popularhistorian , byvocation; diough notan academic historian, by affiliation. • · · Modern historical consciousness evolved in Western Europe during die 16di and 17di centuries. "Historian," as distinct from an annalist or a chronicler, appears in die English language, according to die O.E.D., sometime between 1531 and 1645. Further development ofour (until die 2Odi century, almost exclusively Western) historical consciousness occurred in stages. During die 18di century, history was regarded, and read, as literature. During die 19di century, history was for die first time seen as a science. During die 20di century, historywas often considered as a principal social science. (I believe diat in die 2 1st century, historywill become literature again: but diis will not be a reversal—radier, a contrary development: while academic history maybecome less and less literary, all prose literature maybecome more and more historical. But I am a historian, not a prophet.) Back to die 2Odi century, where we may detect (widiout much straining ofour eyes) a dual development. As an expectable and natural consequence of die democratization of entire societies, die scope ofhistorical reconstruction has broadened. This widening involved manydiings: die studyand die occasional reconstruction ofdie historyofmajorities and not only ofdie ruling minorities; the widening ofdie area ofhistorical study and description beyond dierecords ofpoliticsand ofgovernment; die adoption ofmediods and ofmaterials from die omer "sciences" such as sociology, geography, psychology, etc. The results have been mixed (for often they amounted to not much more dian die questionable dataofretrospective sociologization), but diat is not my argument here. My argument is diat we are still in die presence ofa dual development: for this by and large inevitable and even commendable broadeningofourhistorical perspective and studyhas occurred togedierwidi a lamentable narrowing ofsome ofdie practices ofprofessional historianship, often to die extent dut "academic " may be a more tellingAdjective tfian "professional." Now diiswideningofhistorical studyand interest in our democratic age cannot be but welcome. Let me cite one ofmy bêtes noires, from die first edition ofdie Dictionary ofthe French Academy, published in 1694, which defined history as "die narration of actions and of matters worth remembering." The eighth edition, in 1935, said much of die same: "of acts, of events, of matters worth remembering." Dignes de mémoire! Worth remembering! What nonsense diis is! Is die historian die kind ofprofessionalwhose training qualifies him to tell ordinarypeoplewhat is worth remembering, to label or audienticate persons or events as if diey were fossil fish or pieces ofrock? Is diere such a dungas a person and anodier such diing as a historical person? Every event is a historical event; every source is (at least potentially) a historical source. Historyhasnowentered die democratic age, which simplymeans (die meaning is simple, diough its reconstruction is complicated ) diat die historian must atleastconsider all kinds ofevents, and all kinds ofpeople . However—diis obvious, and necessary, wideningofdie scope ofhistorical knowledge and ofits subjects has occurred togedierwidi a frequent narrowingofprofessional historianship . April 2002 · Historically Speaking In 1777, die first Ph.D. in History was granted in Göttingen. A litde more dian one hundredyears latersuch degreeswere granted in almost every country in Europe and in America, except for England followinga litde later. Thatdie professional qualificationofhistorianship and die concept ofhistory as science rose togedier, markingdie historyofhistoryduringdie 19di century, is obvious. Ithad much to do widi die German notion of Wissenschaft , a term somewhat broader dian die France; diiswas so notonlyfordie greatnonacademic historians such asMacaulayin England , or for Tocqueville or Taine in France; diis was so in die United States, too...