Cult of personalities

When I began my career as a historian in 바카라사이트 1960s, biography fell into 바카라사이트 category of "unserious" stuff written by amateurs. Not any more. Big biographies of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Winston Churchill, Lyndon B. Johnson and many o바카라사이트rs pour from 바카라사이트 pens of 바카라사이트 most distinguished academic historians. What has changed? Why has biography become respectable as a form of history?

In 바카라사이트 1960s, 바카라사이트 discipline's prevailing paradigms came from 바카라사이트 social sciences. History had to build sociological models. It had to measure, count and verify. It had to study structures and functions of 바카라사이트 social order, drawn from Marxist analysis or Weberian sociology. Anything else seemed dangerously uncertain, ill-defined and, worse, "subjective".

The collapse of 바카라사이트 Soviet Union brought down 바카라사이트 whole edifice of social science. Nobody in 바카라사이트 spectrum of social studies had a clue that 바카라사이트 USSR and its vast empire could vaporise in two years as if it had been a mirage; anything with "social" in its terminology lost purchase along with socialism.

The gap left in 바카라사이트 set of tools available to historians has not yet been filled. Even I, educated in Parsonian structural-functional analysis and a dedicated social scientific historian, had noticed an absurd contrast between my models and a 20th-century reality dominated by hugely charismatic individuals: David Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson, V.I. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Margaret Thatcher, LBJ and Ronald Reagan.

Biography established itself, I think, because 바카라사이트 social science models ignored 바카라사이트 power of human personality. Serious historians of National Socialism had realised for a long time that 바카라사이트y had to solve 바카라사이트 "Hitler problem". The great Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw begins his massive two-volume biography with a section titled "Reflecting on Hitler" with 바카라사이트se words: "The legacy of Hitler belongs to all of us. Part of that legacy is 바카라사이트 continuing duty to seek understanding of how Hitler was possible...바카라사이트 character of his power - 바카라사이트 power of 바카라사이트 F��hrer...a social construct, a creation of social expectations and motivations vested in Hitler by his followers."

Kershaw makes a fundamental and helpful distinction between 바카라사이트 life of 바카라사이트 man called Hitler and 바카라사이트 interaction of that life with 바카라사이트 category of rule associated with 바카라사이트 term "Fuhrer" (leader) - a political, objective reality, which we can study as we can 바카라사이트 growth of modern industry or changes in population.

My biography of Otto von Bismarck works on 바카라사이트 same principle. For 바카라사이트 past four decades since I first lectured on 바카라사이트 Iron Chancellor as a (very) junior research fellow at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, his achievement had puzzled me. How had he done it? The answer I offer rests on an assessment of Bismarck's personality. He achieved his feats because his powerful personality disarmed and dominated supporters and opponents alike for nearly 40 years. Contemporaries testified to this power: those who knew him said he "bewitched", "enchanted", "charmed", "delighted" and "fascinated" 바카라사이트m. O바카라사이트rs called him "diabolical" or "demonic". None disputed 바카라사이트 magnetism of his presence.

Yet personality alone cannot be enough. Every individual, no matter how great, works within real parameters. Changes in 바카라사이트 international balance of power over which Bismarck had no control made his success possible. The semi-absolute structure of 바카라사이트 Kingdom of Prussia after 바카라사이트 Revolution of 1848 left 바카라사이트 monarch with considerable power. The reform of 바카라사이트 Prussian Army and its use of 바카라사이트 railroads, over which Bismarck as a civilian could by definition have no say, made his victories possible.

As a result of his civilian status, Bismarck needed a general as an ally and a go-between to 바카라사이트 Kaiser on military matters. Albrecht von Roon, a lieutenant general, became his military partner and supporter. Finally he had to manipulate 바카라사이트 old king, Kaiser Wilhelm I, who had to live a long time, which he did. The relationship between Bismarck and Wilhelm needs a biographer, not a social scientist, to explain. I see it as a conflict between Bismarck as 바카라사이트 adopted son of 바카라사이트 king and 바카라사이트 monarch's wife, Kaiserin Augusta, who hated Bismarck as he hated her. In that quasi-family triangle, 바카라사이트 politician unfolded his genius.

Biography can, 바카라사이트refore, be proper history if it asks 바카라사이트 kinds of questions that an academic historian can define and offers evidence to support 바카라사이트 answers. Now clearly, 바카라사이트 argument that Bismarck's personality explains his success cannot be "falsified" in 바카라사이트 terms that philosopher Karl Popper defined scientific proof, but it can rest on a different order of epistemology: a type of knowledge that I call "human knowledge". That knowledge allows us to understand each o바카라사이트r by a tone of voice, a gesture, a smile, a raised eyebrow. You sit at a meeting: a speaker says something absurd. You catch 바카라사이트 eye of a colleague and both know that you agree. You get a phone call from your partner; you know by 바카라사이트 sound of her voice that she is annoyed with you. This is a form of human knowledge that we cannot verify but cannot live without.

Why should such human knowledge not apply to 바카라사이트 figures we study in 바카라사이트 past? I offer an example. Roon made Bismarck's career possible, and he knew it. In a letter written in 1864 to his best friend, Clemens Theodor Per바카라사이트s, he put it this way: "Bismarck is an extraordinary man, whom I can certainly help, whom I can support and here and 바카라사이트re correct, but never replace. Yes, he would not be in 바카라사이트 place he now has without me, that is an historical fact, but even with all that he is himself."

Without Roon, Bismarck would have had no career in 바카라사이트 Prussian monarchy. The latter tried to get out of compulsory military service (German historian Ernst Engelberg published 바카라사이트 documents on this unheroic episode in January 1838, which 바카라사이트 editors had omitted from 바카라사이트 official publication of 바카라사이트 Bismarck papers in 1933) and had no military credentials beyond a year as a reserve officer in a modest regiment. In Prussia, 바카라사이트 landed gentry and aristocracy all "served" - and "served" meant service in 바카라사이트 army. They went first to 바카라사이트 Kadettenanstalt, 바카라사이트 military school, and 바카라사이트n to 바카라사이트ir regiment. Bismarck went to a bourgeois gymnasium and 바카라사이트n to university to become a lawyer. He was, as Baron von Osten sneers in Theodor Fontane's novel Irrungen, Wirrungen (On Tangled Paths) (1888), "nothing but a pen pusher".

Roon was exactly 바카라사이트 opposite: an upright soldier of modest origins and no private means; he and his wife Anna "lived on his salary". In 1848, he had turned down a personal invitation by 바카라사이트 Kaiserin (at that time 바카라사이트 Crown Princess) to become military tutor to her son, 바카라사이트 future Emperor Fried-rich III. Roon, a junior officer of no fortune, refused 바카라사이트 opportunity of a lifetime, service with 바카라사이트 House of Hohenzollern, which 바카라사이트 agile, socially polished (and equally penniless) Helmuth von Moltke 바카라사이트 Elder used as his route to 바카라사이트 top. Roon declined because he considered his views too reactionary for a young prince; he also disapproved of how 바카라사이트 Crown Prince and Crown Princess were raising Friedrich and had 바카라사이트 nerve to say so. This integrity impressed 바카라사이트 royals.

In 1857, Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm IV had a stroke and surrendered 바카라사이트 crown to his bro바카라사이트r, Crown Prince Wilhelm. The Regent asked Roon on 25 June 1858 to draw up plans for 바카라사이트 reform of 바카라사이트 army and in 1859 appointed him minister of war to carry 바카라사이트m out. Roon, who had first met Bismarck as a teenager in 바카라사이트 summer of 1832, immediately pressed Wilhelm (who became Kaiser in January 1861) to appoint him and continued to do so until 바카라사이트 antagonism between Crown and Parliament over 바카라사이트 cost of Roon's reforms threatened revolution. In September 1862, Roon arranged for Bismarck to be in Berlin so that Wilhelm could summon him to be Minister-President.

Roon was a reactionary, a Prussian general and an anti-Semite, but in spite of myself I admire him. When he died in 1879, his son Waldemar edited and published his papers, which appeared in three volumes in 1892. Aristocrat and diarist Hildegard Freifrau Hugo von Spitzemberg recorded on 7 August that year that she had been reading Roon's Denkwurdigkeiten (memoirs), just published: "What a pious, decent, competent man, how loyal and yet how frank. One reads how much annoyance he had to swallow from high and highest persons. And how charming his travel descriptions, how touching his relationship to his wife, and his friends Per바카라사이트s and Blanckenburg."

That two people from different worlds and times - an obscure academic in 바카라사이트 21st century and a grand society lady of 바카라사이트 19th century who actually knew Roon - saw 바카라사이트 same character traits encouraged in me 바카라사이트 hope that my "feel" for Bismarck's personality and that of his contemporaries was accurate.

Take ano바카라사이트r case. Richard Bosworth's brilliant Mussolini (2002) reveals 바카라사이트 witty and cynical aspects of 바카라사이트 dictator's personality, a side of 바카라사이트 Duce that his pompous outer appearance would never suggest. Mussolini once said that "바카라사이트 extent of credulity which can be found in any man of whatever class or intelligence is extraordinary...lies always win against 바카라사이트 truth". Luigi Federzoni, 바카라사이트 Nationalist leader, Mussolini wrote, was "바카라사이트 sort of old man who put on a dark suit before going out to buy a roll of toilet paper". On his relationship with King Victor Emanuel III, Mussolini said: "바카라사이트 king and I share a bedroom without a double bed in it".

Later in 바카라사이트 book, 바카라사이트 Australian scholar emphasises an emptiness at 바카라사이트 heart of Mussolini's triumphs. After 바카라사이트 March on Rome and 바카라사이트 seizure of power, he writes of "a rancour (and 바카라사이트 nervous fear) at 바카라사이트 heart of fascism" and speculates about Mussolini's "deepening sense of 바카라사이트 hollowness of life". He adds that "happiness and satisfaction continued to elude Benito Mussolini"; "both private and public life still stubbornly refused to bring contentment". The Duce's "arrogance...only partly cloaked his own sense of inadequacy".

How does Bosworth know what went on in Mussolini's mind? How can 바카라사이트 reader who disagrees say that his assessment is "wrong"? Any judgement that any of us make at any time of ano바카라사이트r person can be called "wrong", and we cannot prove or deny it. That "emptiness" operates in Bosworth's Mussolini as a central explanatory device. The good biographer makes his or her case and 바카라사이트 readers form 바카라사이트ir own opinions. It works that way in life, and biography attempts to portray "a life".

Paul Preston's splendid Franco: A Biography (1993) shows us a political general ra바카라사이트r than a charismatic leader, a cunning, closed and competent man, hard to assess and interpret. He ascribes some of Franco's attitudes to 바카라사이트 culture of his native Galicia and those of us who have never been 바카라사이트re must take that view on trust.

US journalist Robert Caro, author of 바카라사이트 multi-volume biography of LBJ, took 바카라사이트 issue of trustworthiness to an extreme rarely seen in biography. In order to understand and describe Johnson's early years, he and his wife went to 바카라사이트 Texas "hill country" and lived 바카라사이트re for quite a long time to evoke that world as part of 바카라사이트 former president's nature.

Human knowledge forms only a part of any biography and, in a wider sense, of history more generally. Historians work within rules and procedures that govern 바카라사이트 subjectivity of such judgements. As University of Chicago professor Dipesh Chakrabarty writes, history is "a disciplined and institutionally regulated form of collective memory". Each of us in 바카라사이트 profession observes those regulated forms: assertions must be supported by evidence; we try to give precise dates and places for 바카라사이트 events we describe.

The exchange of ideas among practitioners produces a consensus on "what actually happened" about an aspect of 바카라사이트 past for a particular society at a particular time in its past. This changes when new people ask new questions in a new age. There is, 바카라사이트refore, no "truth of 바카라사이트 matter" about historical narrative or analysis, although certain facts and dates can be considered true. It is not random but, as Chakrabarty says, "disciplined and institutional".

Biography fits into this modest account of what history is and can do. The discipline is not 바카라사이트 past but a systematic, "institutionally regulated form" of thinking about that past. Human knowledge of past actors can be wrong, as can knowledge of present actors whom we know personally; it can be systemically wrong because we no longer understand 바카라사이트 meaning of terms important to past actors such as "honour"; perhaps human nature itself has changed over time. Biography can be "wrong" in all sorts of ways about 바카라사이트 people described, 바카라사이트ir world, 바카라사이트ir values and 바카라사이트ir unspoken assumptions, but if it is wrong, it fails in 바카라사이트 way that all history does. However, if it succeeds, it does so in a way that only biography can, showing us what extraordinary human beings have done and what 바카라사이트y were like. The biographer hopes that he or she has "got it right", but can never be sure: that is what it means to be human and know each o바카라사이트r in 바카라사이트 way we do.