Category Archives: Historians

‘My Grandfather’s Clock’ by Graeme Davison

2023, 320 p. plus notes

In 2015, Graeme Davison published Lost Relations, (my review here) where this acclaimed academic historian succumbed to his family’s entreaties and waded into the waters of family history to research his mother’s family. It was not without a bit of heartburn and defensiveness, but in telling his mother’s family’s story, he also gave us a reflection on family history itself, its emotional resonances and limitations, and the wider context into which the story of individuals must be placed.

In this more recent book, he turns instead to his father’s family. He writes:

When I published ‘Lost Relations’, a history of my mother’s family, some readers asked why I wrote so little about my father. As I grew up, he discouraged interest in his family’s past, not because it was scandalous- although, as I later learned, there were buried sorrows unknown to me and perhaps to him- but because it was, at least in his eyes, so recent and undistinguished.

p. 2

Later in his life, his father changed his mind, joined the local historical society, and wrote a brief account of his life. Davison changed his mind too, although in his case his interest was piqued by a 200 year old grandfather clock that had been willed to his father by his aunt, and eventually came to him. It couldn’t have gone to a better member of the family: Davison had always loved time-telling and clockwork and indeed, in 1993 had written The Unforgiving Minute, a history of time-telling in Australia. This clock becomes a sort of talisman in this book, marking not just the generations of family that it had passed through, but also marks the changing of attitudes to work, leisure and godliness over time. There is a danger in writing a family history that, to misquote Toynbee, it just becomes one damn generation after the other, but having a concrete object like a clock serves as both metaphor and sticky-tape, connecting albeit tenuously, generations and relationships. The clock is woven into an anecdote told to Davison by his Uncle Frank, who told of visiting his Great Grandfather Thomas Davison in 1929. When the clock chimed, Thomas lift one finger and said “listen to our ancestors”.

Davison, as you will see in my review of Lost Relations, reflected deeply and at length on the nature of family vs. academic history. He has no need to do so again. He pushes the family history boundaries harder in this book, starting in the Scottish borderlands and following the story through to his own career as historian in the academy. By tracing back beyond 1750 he needs to leave behind the genealogists’ stepping stones of formal written records, and turns to tribal and kinship memories- something that required him to bring “my scepticism as well as my romanticism along for the ride” (p. 26) He could only deduce from generalized knowledge of practices of the time and documented histories of the Davisons/Davysouns/Davysons who may or may not be direct descendants. He dips into the soup of DNA testing, and is disillusioned by the suppositions and guesswork it evokes without documentary evidence. He finds a few facts, but has to resort to questions and hypotheses as the family moves back and forth across the Scotland/England border, in a

journey that would take his descendants, step by step, from a small port town to an industrial village, to a factory suburb and finally to an industrial metropolis. Eventually, a century later, they would journey to the other side of the world…Each step was a one-off response to the map of opportunity at the time, but seen over the longue durée the moves fall onto a pattern that suggests the operation of powerful unseen forces… At each step along the journey, they became a little more accustomed to the ideas and values that prepared them for the next. Many factors, invisible to us, probably influenced their outlook, including religious and political ones

p.70-71

Through the “miracle of digitisation” of the British Library’s newspaper archive, he finds his great-great-grandfather addressing a temperance meeting in a speech that could just as easily have been given by his own grandfather and father, lifelong teetotallers. The family line shifts to Birmingham, the workshop of the world, and involvement in a more active political role through workers’ societies, and then a minor manager role in a tinplate company.

It was his grandfather, John Potter Davison, who in 1912, at the age of forty-three, closed his business, said goodbye to his parents and siblings, and embarked for Australia with his wife and four children, with only twenty pounds in his pocket. He was a Methodist, a denomination that encouraged migration, and in Australia he joined other members of the Islington Chapel who had emigrated earlier. They settled in Scotia Street Ascot Vale, along with other Methodist immigrants. Still in the western suburbs, Davison’s father lived with his family in a rented four-roomed cottage in Athol Street Moonie Ponds. The young men of the family moved into apprenticeships as printers and plumbers, joined the Scouting movement and were involved in the church. As the Depression hit, the family purchased a timber cottage in Washington Street, ten minutes’ walk from Essendon station and joined the North Essendon Methodist Church. It was here that Davison’s parents Vic and Emma met, thus joining this story with that he has already told in Lost Relations. He was born a little over nine months later “born into the luckiest and most consequential generation in the history of the planet.” (p 189) 

At this point Davison moves into his own memoir, starting with his childhood home at 16 Banchory Street Essendon, purchased by his parents in 1939. He attended government schools in Aberfeldie and Essendon and in 1958 took up a studentship, with its stipend that made studentships particularly attractive to lower middle class parents whose families had no experience of university. He attended the University of Melbourne and gravitated towards the Student Christian Movement. He was one of the founders of The Melbourne Historical Journal, undertook his honours dissertation, and found himself as one of a small number of secondary teaching students released from their bond by the Education Department to become university teachers. He applied for scholarships in England, and found himself on a boat bound for England, in effect, completing the circumnavigation that his family started. The shift into memoir runs the risk of many professional memoirs that become a roll call of acquaintances’ names, and a travelogue – and although I’m interested in historians’ biographies and intellectual influences, I wonder how many other readers would be.

As well as covering a much wider 400-year timespan, this is a far more personal book than Lost Relations, and in many ways it is a more conventional genealogy-method book than the earlier one. Both books expand the circumstances of his particular ancestors into a wider context, and it is interesting that religion plays such a strong part in both strands of his family history given that it is often rather peripheral to Australian experience. He finds continuities, too, with the traditional of skilled manual work, and the moderate Labor or centrist politics. Of course, there is a limit to the interest that one might have in another person’s ancestors (and, it would seem, no limit at all for one’s own family, for some family historians). And as with Lost Relations, this is a stellar example of a master historian telling family history but drawing on much more than just documents and lineages. He finishes his book as he started it, with the clock that has accompanied his family story, joking about his own family’s eye-rolling when he, too, intoned “listen to our ancestors” on hearing the clock. Davison’s ancestors have clearly spoken to him, and through these two books we eavesdrop on the conversation.

My rating: 8.5/10

Sourced from: borrowed from my friend Patricia

Vale Stuart Macintyre

Many tributes are flowing for the historian Stuart Macintyre. He was a prolific historian, both as author of his own volumes and as a collaborator with other historians. His best known works are probably The Oxford History of Australia, Volume 4, 1901–1942: The Succeeding Age (1986), A Concise History of Australia (2016, 4th edition) and Australia’s Boldest Experiment: War and Reconstruction in the 1940s (2015). The second volume of his history of the Communist Party The Party: The Communist Party of Australia from heyday to reckoning is scheduled to be published early next year, coming 23 years after the first volume The Reds: The Communist Party of Australia From Origins to Illegality (1999). As a co-writer and editor, he was a historian of historians, as in A History for a Nation: Ernest Scott and the Making of Australian History (1994) and The Discovery of Australian History 1890-1939 (1995) which I reviewed here. He was keenly aware of the discipline of history and the uses to which it has been put, as in The Historian’s Conscience (2004) and The History Wars (2003) which he wrote with Anna Clark.

Three fitting obituaries by Janet McCalman, Brian Aarons and Tim Rowse are reproduced on Open Labour’s page: https://www.openlabor.net.au/2021/11/24/stuart-macintyre-a-history-warrior/

‘Death of a Notary’ by Donna Merwick

I read in the newspaper this morning that Donna Merwick (1932-2021) has died. Donna Merwick was an American-born historian who worked as a Lecturer in History at the University of Melbourne between 1968 and 1995. She entered the Order of the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1953, and completed her M.A. and Ph.D as a sister until leaving the order in 1968 to take up her position at the University of Melbourne. She is known as one of the members of the ‘Melbourne School’ of history comprising her husband Greg Dening (a former priest), and La Trobe University historians Rhys Isaac and Inga Clendinnen, although in an interview in The Australasian Journal of American Studies published in Vol. 34 No.1 (July 2015), she questions the idea that there was ever such a ‘school’. It’s an interesting interview, combining personal and professional academic considerations (albeit referring to academics of the 1970s and 1980s in a very different academic environment) and is available through JSTOR at State Libraries. She has an entry in the online Encyclopedia of Women and Leadership in Twentieth Century Australia. While I could never in any way hope to emulate it, the history writing of this ‘Melbourne School’ (her skepticism about its existence notwithstanding) has been a huge influence on the way I read and appreciate history.

I read her Death of a Notary back in 2008, before I started this blog, and so I dug out my reading journal to see how I responded to it then. I was obviously mightily impressed. Reading it now, what I like is that in prefiguring some of the current trends in history writing of imagination and extrapolation from other sources (particularly in books written for a wider, popular rather than academic audience), she justifies and delineates where the sources start and finish, revealing her thinking as a historian. Here’s what I said at the time:

1999, 186 p. text and 51 p. ‘Notes and Reflections’

What a brilliant and original book! It is in effect two books. The first is a conversational, present tense, rather speculative narrative that pieces together the small documentary fragments that refer to Janse, the Dutch-speaking notary in Albany, who commits suicide in the late 17th century, a number of years after the English have taken possession of New Amsterdam. The British renamed it ‘New York’ and incorporated it into the British common law tradition, introducing the English language and British colonial bureaucracy. It is largely chronological, told in dated episodes, that change their focus from father to son, and from New Amsterdam to Amsterdam and then back to Albany again. She incorporates observations from parallel, but different experiences that have been documented to supplement where Janse’s record is silent, and she invents, drawing on this other data to give the narrative life and image.

In the second, ‘Notes and Reflection’ section, we see the historian with her hard-hat on. Every ‘invention’ in the first part is sourced and validated; every assumption is justified, and every source is credited. The sheer volume and perspiration is here for all to see in this second part with its more clinical and measured tone.

Brilliant.

My rating (then) 10/10

Sourced from: La Trobe University Library. I see that it is available online through the Internet Archive too, although I’m not sure how much of it you are able to access.

Historians on the coronavirus pandemic #5: Stephen Davies

I read about this through the blog of economic historian Andrew Smith who works at Liverpool University. Prior to this, he worked in Canadian history which is where I came across him while I was working on my thesis. I’ve followed his blog ever since, which naturally enough leans towards economic history.

In this posting he critiques the historian Niall Ferguson’s working paper on the impact of COVID-19. I’ve become increasingly put off by the conservatism of Ferguson’s work over recent years, especially since his links with the Hoover Institute have become more public. Andrew Smith picks up on Ferguson’s contention that “we need to think of COVID-19 as one of those rare catastrophes that befall humanity at irregular intervals in history. In addition to pandemics, these include major wars, volcanic eruptions or earthquakes and extreme climatic events.  Smith criticizes Ferguson for using only the 1918 ‘Spanish’ flu as a historical analogy (possibly because he had done work on it previously) instead of also looking at the 1957 and 1968 influenza epidemics. Smith points instead to a more historically-insightful working paper by Stephen Davies Going Viral: the history and economics of pandemics, which is available online.

In summary,  Davies argues that there have been a series of pandemics, but that COVID is more serious than the 1957 or 1968 influenza outbreaks. Historical comparisons teach us that they break out after periods of increasing economic integration, generally in connected cities that are centres of trade, and generally where the human world abuts the natural. They generally come in waves, with the second wave more serious than the first. Features of contemporary society mean that pandemics are more likely with more damaging results e.g. international integration, an increasingly efficient but fragile world economy, movement of women into the workforce and a change in the way that older people are cared for.  On historical precedent, this pandemic will last for about 18 months, and that for structural reasons, it will be followed by other pandemics.

He looks at the 1968 influenza, and the reasons why if it happened today, it would be much worse. Women in the paid workforce means that school closures have a much larger economic effect, and the concentration of a larger number of old people in care homes means that workers and visitors are more likely to contract it.

He highlights that if the 1968 influenza epidemic occurred today, it would be more severe and prompt a lock-down approach similar to the one we are experiencing today because the health system is not as resilient as it was. In 1970 there were 9.3  beds per head of population in the UK, and in 2010 it was 3.1 (and has been reduced even further), spread across the country. These fewer beds are now concentrated in large cities instead.

While warning against thinking that “everything will change”, he predicts the following economic effects:

a severe hit to the supply side of the economy (not the demand side initially) which will probably lead to a severe and U-shaped recession; innovations and changes in things such as consumption and working patterns that were already underway will be accelerated; a major debt crisis (which was in line to happen anyway, sooner or later) has been triggered along with a fall in the value of many assets; there may be higher inflation in a year to two years’ time; there will be a significant pull-back from globalisation and supranational governance will come under serious strain; there will be extensive but complex social and psychological effects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Historians on the coronavirus pandemic #4: Pandemic narratives and the historian LA Review of Books

In https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/pandemic-narratives-and-the-historian/   Alex Langstaff, a PhD candidate at New York University convenes a roundtable with a number of international historians to discuss the coronavirus pandemic.

IN APRIL 2020, we interviewed an international group of leading historians of public health, epidemics, and disaster science. Alex Langstaff (A. L.) asked them to reflect on how history is being used in coverage of COVID-19, and how they themselves are responding to the virus in their research, reading, and work life. Who gets to tell the story of epidemics? And more particularly, who gets to decide when an epidemic like COVID-19 ends? Is 1918 really the best parallel? In general, what are the historian’s tools for understanding pandemics?

Each of the historians comes very much from the perspective of work that they have completed previously. The historians are listed below:

Alison Bashford is Research Professor in History at the University of New South Wales Sydney. Her work connects the history of science, global history, and environmental history. Her books include Global Population: History, Geopolitics, and Life on Earth (Columbia, 2014), Contagion, w/ Claire Hooker (2002, Routledge), and the edited volumes Quarantine (2016) and Medicine at the Border (2006).  She also wrote Imperial Hygiene: A Critique of Colonialism, Nationalism and Public Health, which is the book that I am most familiar with amongst her work.

Simukai Chigudu is associate professor of African Politics and Fellow of St Antony’s College, University of Oxford. Prior to academia, he was a medical doctor in the UK’s National Health Service. He is the author of The Political Life of an Epidemic: Cholera, Crisis and Citizenship in Zimbabwe (Cambridge, 2020).

Deborah Coen is professor in the Department of History at Yale University and chair of the Program in the History of Science and Medicine. Her research focuses on the modern physical and environmental sciences and on central European intellectual and cultural history. Her books include Climate in Motion (2018, Chicago) and The Earthquake Observers: Disaster Science from Lisbon to Richter (2013, Chicago).

Richard Keller is professor in the Department of History, and Department of Medical History and Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research focuses on the history of European and colonial medicine, as well as public health and environmental history. His books include Fatal Isolation: The Devastating Paris Heat Wave of 2003 (2015, Chicago).

Julie Livingston, Silver Professor of History and Social and Cultural Analysis at New York University, was named a MacArthur Fellow in 2013. Her work is at the intersection of history, anthropology, and public health. Self-Devouring Growth: A Planetary Parable (2019, Duke) is her latest book.

Nayan Shah is professor of American Studies and Ethnicity and History at the University of Southern California. His research examines historical struggles over bodies, space and the exercise of state power from the mid-19th to the 21st century. His books include Contagious Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown (2001, Berkeley).

Paul Weindling is Wellcome Trust Research Professor in the History of Medicine at Oxford Brookes University. His research covers evolution and society, public health, and human experimentation post-1800. His books include Epidemics and Genocide in Eastern Europe, 1890–1945(2000, Oxford) and Victims and Survivors of Nazi Human Experiments (2014, Bloomsbury).

As you can see, they represent different perspectives, which comes through in their responses to the questions posed.

Historians on the coronavirus pandemic #3:History and Policy Special Feature

There is just so much material on this special feature page of History and Policy. Titled ‘Pandemics, Quarantine and Public Health’, it features a number of essays written by historians about current events, with a slant towards the situation in England.  Some of them are policy papers, others are opinion pieces but either way….there’s hours of fascinating reading here!

This is what you can find on this page as of May 24 (and it seems to be updated quite frequently). Even the issues that are being raised at different times mark the arc of concern during the pandemic:

  • COVID and the UK National Debt in historical context
  • The real lessons of the Blitz for COVID 19
  • Call it what it is: supermarket rationing
  • Loosening lockdown: lessons from the blackout
  • COVID is not a Black Swan: predictable shocks need fully-funded, resilient public services
  • The need for a new National Food Policy: food supply problems during National Emergencies
  • Public Enemy Number One: terrorism, security and COVID 19
  • Soldiering a Pandemic: the threat of militarized rhetoric in addressing COVID 19
  • A matter of life and death: football, conflict and the coronavirus
  • Hospital visiting in epidemics: an old debate reopened
  • On infection parties, herd immunity and other half-truths
  • Does Coronavirus spell the end of neoliberalism?
  • COVID 19 and the 1919 Spanish ‘flu’: differences give us a measured hope
  • Epidemic control and Chinese public health: past and present
  • Epidemics and ‘essential work’ in Early Modern Europe
  • Blitz spirit wont help ‘Win the Fight’ against COVID
  • Quarantine – an Early Modern approach.

 

 

Historians on the coronavirus pandemic #2: Warwick Anderson

Australian historian Warwick Anderson has had two essays published on the Somatosphere website, which advertises itself as “A collaborative website covering the intersections of medical anthropology, science and technology studies, cultural psychiatry, psychology and bioethics.” They are running a series of essays called ‘Dispatches from the Pandemic’. Wesley Anderson, both medical doctor and PhD, is Professor of Politics, Governance, and Ethics in the Department of History and the Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney. He is a historian of science, medicine and public health. His book Intolerant Bodies: A Short History of Autoimmunity won the NSW Premier’s General History Prize in 2015.

In the first essay Not on the Beach, or Death in Bondi? he looks at the recent closure of ‘iconic’ Sydney beaches after a weekend of crowded sands.  He juxtaposes that scene of people crowded on the beach on a hot day with the other sight, occurring only a few short months ago, of people huddled on the Mallacoota beach under the violent red skies of bushfire. He picks up on the place of the beach in the Australian imagination  (and I find it strange that he didn’t pick up on Greg Dening’s work on beaches), and as an unstable, ambiguous space that signals freedom and yet is surrounded by prohibition in the form of flags, signs and regulations.

The second essay Epidemic Philosophy he examines the pronouncements of various present-day European philosophers (all of venerable years as he points out in parentheses) on the coronavirus pandemic. He starts with Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, who in February 2020 proclaimed that it was no worse than seasonal influenza and that social distancing was a deep state conspiracy. Agamben has since moderated his views. A number of his European colleagues distanced themselves from his stance, with varying degrees of optimism/pessimism over the post-COVID world. To be honest, I hadn’t heard of any of these philosophers, but I guess that philosophy is not my field of expertise. Anderson finishes his essay by observing that perhaps the habit of philosophers to sit quietly before coming to a position is the wisest course to adopt.

Historians on the coronavirus pandemic #1: Frank Bongiorno

As part of my work with Heidelberg Historical Society, I write a column for our newsletter about local events one hundred years ago. During 2019 I wrote a lot about the 1919 Spanish Influenza epidemic, but most of the local information about it was scattered in various newspapers, often in the column advertisements or in reports of council meetings. Our museum holds no local artefacts whatsoever about the epidemic in our collection- no pamphlets, no vaccination papers, nothing.

That’s not likely to happen with this current coronavirus pandemic, with museums and collecting organizations gathering together material, images and reflections right now, for their collections in the future. It’s as if we have a heightened consciousness of being in a historically significant event, no doubt underlined by the constant repetition of ‘unprecedented’, and probably bolstered even more by the news cycle and the ready availability of images worldwide of empty cities and crowded hospital corridors.

I’ve been interested in reading what historians have to say about it all. The factual parallels between this and other epidemics are relatively easy to identify, but I’m interested in what historians have to say about what it all means. And who better to start with than Australian historian, Professor Frank Bongiorno from A.N.U.?

On 29 April Frank, along with Professor John Quiggan  gave a Zoom talk to the Victorian branch of the Australian Fabian Society on the topic ‘Socialism and the Australian Progressive Movement’.

You can access it from the Australian Fabian Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/australianfabians/videos/619066028823088/

Or Inside Story has a very interesting article drawn from Frank’s talk called “Is history our post-pandemic guide?”  He looks back to WWI/Spanish Flu, the Depression and World War II. For those of who hope that perhaps some good will come from of all of this today, he warns that progressive change never comes from conflict, only from bipartisan consensus, however lukewarm. It’s well worth reading.

 

Friday essay: the ‘great Australian silence’ 50 years on by Anna Clark

https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-great-australian-silence-50-years-on-100737

An excellent essay in The Conversation by historian Anna Clark reflecting on WEH Stanner’s 1968 Boyer Lectures where he coined the term ‘the great Australian silence’ to describe the occlusion of indigenous people from narratives of Australian history. Her essay comes fifty years after those essays, but also in the contemporary context of the political response to the Uluru statement and  Lyndall Ryan and others’ work on the massacre map.

I encourage you to read it.

Contesting Australian History: A Festschrift for Marilyn Lake

lake

Strictly speaking, a  ‘festschrift‘ is a book of essays written by colleagues and students that is presented to an honorable person, generally an academic, during their lifetime. Well in this case, the collection of essays may come later in the form of a special edition of History Australia, because the main event here was a two-day celebration of Marilyn Lake’s career and writing at the beautiful 1888 building at the University of Melbourne. What a line-up! Even though I’ve only read a few of Lake’s works, and she wouldn’t recognize me at all, I couldn’t resist hearing such eminent historians responding to the wide range of issues upon which Marilyn Lake has written, held over two days in my own home town!

Marilyn Lake is an Australian historian whose work has spanned the homefront response to WWI (both at the time and recently), feminism and gender, and the White Australia Policy. Her book Drawing the Global Colour Line, co-written with Henry Reynolds, is a major contribution to transnational history internationally and here in Australia. She is a fearless public intellectual, most notably after the Age published an abridged version of the public lecture ‘The Myth of ANZAC’ that she delivered in 2009.  In the bitter and highly personalized response to her book, one angry male writer asked her “What have you ever done for Australia?” Well, this festschrift was a resounding answer – even if he wasn’t there to hear it.

Different speakers took various approaches to the festschrift task.  Some spoke about Marilyn herself and their own relationship with her.  Others engaged with her main academic interests and publications. Some spoke about their own research, and Marilyn’s influence on their own work. Others paid tribute to her as public historian, course convenor, research partner and supervisor. Continue reading