From the Kenilworth Weekly News:
Warwick author and reputable historian Professor Eric Ives will be challenging the written word during a history event this month.
The emeritus professor of English history at Birmingham University said he and his students have “turned everything upside down” about past accounts of the ‘nine days’ Tudor queen Lady Jane Grey.
…
He has spent the past ten years working on his forthcoming biography about the controversial Lady Jane. He said: “Some of it has been very frustrating and some of it has been fascinating.”
Spotted at the Lady Jane Grey Reference Guide blog
RSS Feed
Google+ Page
I managed to get “the scoop” on the content of Ives’ talk from someone who was present. He does take a very legalistic approach to the subject, as the article indicates, arguing that Mary Tudor should never have become queen because she was legally illegitimate and therefore not eligible to inherit. Ives is a lay-preacher in a local Methodist church, so he has a sympathetic view toward Protestant Jane and a perhaps unsympathetic view toward Catholics. I am told that his book takes the form of a “whodunit,” to use his own description. He treats it as a mystery to be solved. The mystery, apparently, is who decided to make Jane queen and why. Ives’ seeming answer is that Edward VI made the decision on his own, and that the court and council supported it much more readily than usually believed. And the “why” seems to be because Jane was the rightful legal heir, or so Ives’ argues. (I disagree, of course.) In Ives’ view, Mary’s reign was entirely illegal, as was Elizabeth’s after her, or so my spy reports. He has some interesting ideas, and apparently draws on some unusual evidence. While the article describes Ives’ book as “turning everything upside down” with regard to Jane, the content of his talk seems to indicate that he takes a very traditional view of her as an individual person, so I am anxious to read the book when it actually appears. Rumor has it that will be in the late sping of 2009.
It has always fascinated me that historians, of any ilk, education, persuasion, or personality, can look at the exact same evidence of an event and come to completely different conclusions as to ‘the truth’. Interesting how a historian’s background can so influence their opinion, their ‘take’ on a situation, and color their interpretation of the past.
This is not to say that any one’s conclusion is wrong. I hold my own ideas as to Lady Jane’s right to the throne…but that has only come down through non-education research. In other words…reading most every word ever written and coming to my own conclusion.
I look forward to reading Eric Ive’s book, just as I look forward to reading yours, PhD Historian
Tracey, you raise a very valid point. It is one that historians grapple with all the time. How do we limit the degree to which our personal biases and preconceptions affect our analysis of the historical evidence? How do we maintain a neutral stance? Is it even possible to be truly neutral? Some historians put great effort into attempting to remain neutral, others less so.
But I doubt that any legitimate historian would ever claim to know “the truth” about any historical event or person. What most of us offer are interpretations of the evidence and arguments based on that evidence that lead toward certain POSSIBLE conclusions. We are rather like lawyers in a court room presenting different aspects of the same case to a single jury. It is then up to the jury to decide which attorney has presented the most persuasive and logical case … though unlike courts of law, “reasonable doubt” is always present when history is involved. And while we certainly strive for accuracy, it would be very incorrect to say that we claim to offer “the truth” about history.
Yes, Ives is perhaps biased by his own religious faith and by his longstanding personal interest in the history of English law. And I am perhaps biased by my own lack of religious faith and by my inclusion in a group that has, like women, suffered ill treatment over the centuries. But at the same time, I think it is very important to recall that human events are very complex, and it is very rare for events to be influenced or shaped by only one circumstance. More commonly, people and events are shaped by a multitude of circumstances. So think of historians as offering the necessary and realistic variety of peepholes through which to view an event or person, rather than a single and unrealistic peephole. And what we offer are truly mere “peepholes,” never wide-screen high-definition documentaries.
I gave a paper at a conference once where one o the responses from audience was that I ‘had cherry picked the data to support my thesis’. I was so flummoxed I could barely respond. I thought I had drawn links between existing data and proposed a thesis. Days later I realized what I should have said, ‘We all find the data we are interested in. No one has a complete story but perhaps together we have a more complete story.’ It was pretty unnerving to get that response from the audience.
So I REALLY like PhD historians metaphor of peepholes and high def TV.
Thanks for sharing the details about the talk. It sounds like Ives is going to take an interesting approach.
I had an interesting discussion with a friend about Queen Victoria and her relationship with Prince Albert.
My friend insisted, absolutely, no question about it, that Albert loved Victoria from the moment they were married. I had come up with a different conclusion from books-articles which had crossed my eyes.
When I asked her what she basing her opinion on, she said it was what her college professor had taught. Just the one source, and she was taking what he said as gospel.
Do historians ever take into account what the learning public will take from their work? Does any historian absolutely insist that HIS/HER conclusion is the ONLY one that matters? I could mention a Tudor specialist, but won’t persue that here.
Peepholes…good metaphor!
In response to your first question, I cannot speak for all historians, but only for myself. I do try to write with the general educated reading public in mind. But I have always been of the firm opinion that the pursuit of studies in history is useless unless it has value and meaning for the general public. I have never been very fond of historical study and writing aimed only at other highly trained historians and written in such a way that few can understand it. Imagine if other highly trained professionals (e.g., physicians, lawyers, accountants) used their knowledge only to benefit others in the same profession and not the general public!
The closest I can come to a generalization about the entire profession might be my observation that only a small minority of academically trained, university based historians write for “the learning public,” if by that phrase you mean the educated reading public who are themselves employed in some field other than history. The overwhelming majority of academic historians usually write with other academics as their intended audience. I do not have the impression that academics often consider how the general public might interpret their work. Instead, they seem to leave it to “popular” historians like Alison Weir to transmit their findings to the general public. There are exceptions, of course. David Starkey writes for both academics and the general public, perhaps more so for the latter. But he is nearly unique among historians in his fondness of the spotlight and public controversy. He is, no doubt, the specialist you allude to who has a tendency to insist that only HIS conclusion really matters and that all others are in error. He started his career, in fact, by publicly insisting that one of the most respected historians of Tudor politics (and Starkey’s own supervisor at the time!) was wrong about everything. But sadly, he is not the only historian to insist that he/she is correct and all others are wrong. All you need to do is to attend a big history professional conference and listen in on some of the heated arguments and nasty comments made in response to the papers presented. KB has already noted one example of that above. I have witnessed some pretty ugly scenes carried out in public between historians with conflicting viewpoints. I’ve never understood how anyone, however respected or experienced, can claim to know “the absolute truth” about something that happened over 400 years ago, yet many do. I prefer always to qualify my own conclusions as “possible” or “likely,” not as “certain” or “absolute.”
Wow! This is a great thread and I enjoyed reading everyone’s viewpoints. I can’t wait to read both books. PhD Historian – when will yours be out? And is Spring 09 still the timeframe for Ives’ book?
I do school appearances for younger grades and I have been trying to find a way to teach about rumors through history. Now don’t laugh…I know this cannot be compared to the academic talks given by some of the historians on this board. But I have found a really creative active way to teach kids how history gets distorted over time and how different people can have such varied perspectives. I didn’t come up with this. Author Tanya Stone recently blogged about it.
Basically she asks a child to tell them about some big event that happened at lunch or somewhere in their school. Then she asks friends of the person to tell their version and then asks people who were not involved in the incident to give their perspective. Well you can guess the conclusion – every child will have a different story of the event and the people involved.
And aren’t historians just a bunch of bickering children when it comes right down to it?
To quote my favorite propagandist “history is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon”. – Napoleon
Carlyn…what an excellent idea:). I used to play this ‘game’ at birthday parties with the original version, and the totally scewed version, given after the b-day cake. The astonished expressions on faces were wonderful to behold.
David Starkey and Eric Ives…two very well known historians, as far as the general public is concerned. Well, they are to me, anyway. IMO…
These two researchers would have a lot more clout than a historian who is not very well known. For instance, a historian who has not had a lot of work published through Amazon or other bookstore, or been prominently featured in a television program perhaps wouldn’t be given as much credibility, by the public, as these two ‘famous’ writers.
Comments, please.
Liz, the information I have is that Ives’ is anticipating a publication date in the late spring of 2009. However, I am also told that he has not yet submitted a finalized manuscript to the publisher. Ordinarily, it takes at least one full year from submission to publication, but perhaps Ives’ publisher is holding a place for him in their printing queue. His publisher is Blackwell, so I suggest monitoring their website under “Forthcoming Titles” for news of a release date. I’m sure Blackwell will be heavily publicizing Ives’ book when it is released.
Tracey, most academic historians’ books are available through Amazon these days, though they may not sell well … largely because most of them deal with highly specialized and unpopular topics. It is rare … very rare … for a book by an academic historian to be sold in a regular bookstore. Again, the highly specialized nature of most of them results in very poor sales, so bookstores tend not to stock them. And yes, television appearances do tend to enhance an academic author’s credibility with the general public. They become regarded as “experts” by virtue of their celebrity, not necessarily because they are the best authority on a given topic. Starkey is a prime example of this phenomenon.
Liz, my own book has recently been canceled by a publisher upon hearing that Ives’ has a book coming out and Leanda de Lisle has a similar one due in January (delayed from September). Three books in one year was one book too many, and I was the last to enter the field, so I got dropped. My book takes a very different approach than either of theirs, however, so I am hoping to re-enter the fray. Once both of their books are out, I will re-approach some publishers with my own, suggesting that it will be a nice contrast to Ives’ book, in particular. Maybe I can be like Retha Warnicke was to Eric Ives on Anne Boleyn and offer a very different opinion that starts a mini-controversy!
This is very disappointing news to me, phd historian, and I’m sure other readers here feel the same. But it seems to happen frequently in the publishing world, and sound arguments written in an entertaining and accessible style always find an audience. Since interest in Tudors is inexhaustible, I’m sure your book will be printed, even if there is a delay. If publishers are worried about competition, you can point them to this site and your fanbase as a start!
I know you have a horror of Starkey’s efforts at self-promotion, but I think your idea about starting a mini-controversy is a good one. The more your name is recognized, the more publishers and public will clamor. Next year there will be a lot of focus on Tudor topics and issues, in conjunction with the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII, and publications and magazines will be looking for well-written, lively articles – maybe an opportunity here?
PhD Historian, I am disappointed too that your book will not be out next year. Your replies to the board questions are always so thorough. I don’t know anyone who knows more about Tudor History. Your head might explode if you knew more.
I like the idea to take a controversial approach. And for the record, I prefer Warnicke to Ives….maybe for that reason. Starkey should go sell laundry detergent. He just annoys me.
It does seem that publishers are doing less and less in promotion lately so the fact that you already have a loyal fan base should help your book get back on their list.
Thank you all for the kind words of support. When I got notice a few weeks ago that my book was a “no go” with the publisher, I was devastated. But now that I am sensing a new niche as a counterpoint to Ives, I am becoming enthusiastic again. I am by nature NOT a patient person, so the prospect of waiting another couple of years is exceedingly frustrating. But knowing that I have a “loyal fan base” goes a VERY long way toward building patience. Thank you all!
Yes, how disappointing
I didn’t know the publishing world worked in that fashion. I must say, I don’t agree with that position at all!! No chance now to load my arms with books on a favorite Tudor family member, cozy into the rocking chair, and let the 16th century do its work.
I feel bad for you, PhD.
However, just look at how much you can tweek your book when new sources of information are suddenly uncovered. Goodness, just think…out there is a piece of history which is waiting for you to discover and which will turn the world around on how it thinks about Lady Jane!! By then Ives and de Lisle’s work will already be bound in a volume, and there won’t be the opportunity to change the information!
You’ll be in the right spot and at the right time!!!
That is good to hear PhD Historian. Hopefully the publication of new books about Jane will lead to lots of discussion and your publisher or a new one will recognise that there is room in the market for your interpretation of events.
Just FYI, I’ve been looking for Ives’ book on Amazon UK — there’s no listing for an Ives work on Lady Jane, but he has a biography of Henry VIII coming out in 2010 apparently.
Update – Ives’ Jane Grey book is now available for pre-order on Amazon.co.uk. It’s supposed to be coming out in August 2009, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the release date shifts, based on my previous experiences.
From the Amazon description:
Jane Grey, the Tudor ′nine–day–queen′, is one of history′s tragic figures. In July 1553, Edward VI, the heir to Henry VIII, died after only a brief reign as a minor. His death left the Tudor dynasty in turmoil. In the months that followed, Jane Grey, the grand–daughter of Henry VIII′s sister was declared queen, only to be overthrown by Edward′s elder sister, Mary Tudor. As a Protestant figurehead under a Catholic monarch, Jane Grey was later beheaded at the Tower.
Eric Ives, author of the bestselling ′Life and Death of Anne Boleyn′, turns his forensic eye on the sources surrounding Jane Grey′s short life. His book tells the story of Jane – what little we know of her – and how she came to be a pawn in the deadly game of Tudor politics. He challenges the view that the crisis in 1553 was a mere footnote to the story of Henry VIII′s reign, showing how the affair illuminates wider questions of royal succession and power in the Tudor age. He demonstrates that Jane Grey′s brief reign had a determining influence on the rest of the century. He also reassesses the role and character of the mysterious John Dudley, duke of Northumberland, the ambitious figure at the heart of the events of 1553 and the man ultimately responsible for Jane′s death.
This is historical writing at its best: authoritative, suspenseful, real–life drama.