Bibliography: "Historical Revolution Revisited"

I intend to revisit my revisitation and expand it into an article for publication within the year. In the meantime, here is a working bibliography:

Books
Baker, Herschel. The Race of Time: Three Lectures on Renaissance Historiography. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967.

Bentley, Michael, ed. Companion to Historiography. London: Routledge, 1997.

Butterfield, Herbert. The Whig Interpretation of History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1965.

Ferguson, Arthur B. The Articulate Citizen and the English Renaissance. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1965.

Ferguson, Arthur B. Clio Unbound: Perception of the social and cultural past in Renaissance England. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1979.

Fussner, F. Smith. The Historical Revolution: English Historical Writing and Thought 1580-1640. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962.

Fussner, F. Smith. Tudor History and the Historians. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1970.

Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England, c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982.

Hay, Denys. Annalists and Historians: Western Historiography from the Eighth to the Eighteenth Centuries. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1977.

Herendeen, Wyman H. William Camden: A Life in Context. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2007.

Hill, Christopher. Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Kelley, Donald R. Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law, and History in the French Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.

Kelley, Donald R. Versions of History from Antiquity to the Enlightenment. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.

Levine, Joseph M. Humanism and History: Origins of Modern English Historiography. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.

Levy F. J. Tudor Historical Thought. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

McKisack, May. Medieval History in the Tudor Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.

Patterson, Annabel. Nobody’s Perfect: A New Whig Interpretation of History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Pocock, J. G. A. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1967.

Woolf, D. R. The Idea of History in Early Stuart England: Erudition, Ideology, and ‘The Light of Truth’ from the Accession of James I to the Civil War. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990.

Woolf, D. R. Reading History in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.


Articles
Clark, Stuart, “Bacon’s Henry VII: A Case-Study in the Science of Man.” History and Theory (May 1974).

Colie, R. L., “Review of The Historical Revolution by F. Smith Fussner.” Political Science Quarterly (June 1963).

Douglas, David, “Review of The Historical Revolution by F. Smith Fussner.” The English Historical Review (April 1964).

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L., “The Advent of Printing and the Problem of the Renaissance.” Past and Present (November 1969).

Elton, G. R., “Review of Tudor History and the Historians by F. Smith Fussner.” History and Theory (1971).

Elton, G. R., “Review of Clio Unbound by Arthur B. Ferguson.” History and Theory (1981).

Farnell, James E., “The Social and Intellectual Basis of London’s Role in the English Civil Wars.” The Journal of Modern History (December 1977).

Ferguson, Arthur B., “Review of Tudor History and the Historians by F. Smith Fussner.” Renaissance Quarterly (Winter 1971).

Finlayson, Michael, “Clarendon, Providence and the Historical Revolution.” Albion (Winter 1990).

Fussner, F. Smith, “Review of Tudor Historical Thought by F. J. Levy.” History and Theory, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1969), pp. 371-387.

Kelley, Donald R., “History, English Law and the Renaissance.” Past and Present (November 1974).

Lewin, Joan, “Review of The Historical Revolution by F. Smith Fussner.” British Journal of Educational Studies (May 1963).

MacCaffrey, Wallace T., “Review of Medieval History in the Tudor Age by May McKisack.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History (1972).

MacCaffrey, Wallace T., “Review of Tudor History and the Historians by F. Smith Fussner, Political History: Principles and Practices by G. R. Elton.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History (Winter 1972).

Mendyk, Stan, “Early British Chorography.” Sixteenth Century Journal (Winter 1986).

Nadel, George H. “Review of The Historical Revolution by F. Smith Fussner.” History and Thought (1963).

Preston, Joseph H., “Was there an Historical Revolution?” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 38, No. 2, (April – June, 1977): pp. 353-364.

Schiffman, Zachary Sayre, “An Anatomy of the Historical Revolution in Renaissance France.” Renaissance Quarterly (Autumn 1989).

Southgate, W. M., “Review of Tudor Historical Thought by F. J. Levy.” The Journal of Modern History (March 1964).

Stearns, Raymond P., “Review of The Historical Revolution by F. Smith Fussner.” History and Theory (1963).

Sypher, G. Wylie, “Similarities between the Scientific and the Historical Revolutions at the end of the Renaissance.” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 26, No. 3 (July – September, 1965), pp. 353-368.

Thomas, Keith, “Review of Tudor Historical Thought by F. J. Levy.” The Review of English Studies (February 1969).

Tinkler, John F., “The Rhetorical Method of Francis Bacon’s History of the Reign of King Henry VII.” History and Theory (February 1987).

Trevor-Roper, H. R., “Review of Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution by Christopher Hill.” History and Theory (1966).

Woolf, Daniel R., “Speech, Text, and Time: The Sense of Hearing and the Sense of the Past in Renaissance England.” Albion (Summer 1986).

Woolf, Daniel R., “Erudition and the Idea of History in Renaissance England.” Renaissance Quarterly (Spring 1987).

Woolf, Daniel R., “Review of Humanism and History by Joseph M. Levine.” Albion (Autumn 1987).

Woolf, Daniel R., “The ‘Common Voice:’ History, Folklore and Oral Tradition in Early Modern England.” Past and Present (August 1988).

Woolf, Daniel R., “Review of Utter Antiquity by Arthur B. Ferguson.” Albion (Winter 1993).

Woolf, Daniel R., “The Writing of Early Modern European Intellectual History, 1945-1995.” Companion to Historiography. London: Routledge, 1997.

Historical Revolution Revisited

A summary of a recent seminar paper, "Historical Revolution Revisited: The Waning Influence of F. Smith Fussner in Tudor-Stuart Historiography":

We moderns view history, the past, notions of continuity and change in time, etc., very differently from, well, people in the past. The medieval understanding in particular stood in opposition (and was in some ways superior) to our modern notions of time. (Medievals overemphasized permanence, we overemphasize change.) The Renaissance/Reformation was an imporant transitional period for the understanding and writing of history. The many intellectual, social, and material innovations that occurred during the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries (especially the 16th, in my opinion) caused a shift in our understanding of the past and our relationship to it, and they paved the way for the creation of the modern discipline of historical studies.

Where does my paper fit into this? The big debate is whether the shifts in ideas and practices in history (and in the Renaissance in general) were gradual or punctuated, evolutionary or revolutionary, political or intellectual or social or material, etc. How should we define this shift in historical understanding? F. Smith Fussner, professor of history at Reed College (at the time), published his book The Historical Revolution: English Historical Writing and Thought 1580-1640 in 1962, arguing that nothing short of a "historical revolution" analogous to the widely-acknowledged "scientific revolution" occurred in England between 1580 and 1640 (or 1660, as he sometimes suggests - F. Smith, will you make up your mind!).

Fussner's thesis proved very influential among early modern historians. This is not to say that everyone agreed with him. Some scholars bought his argument in its entirety, and some completely rejected it, arguing that shifts in historical understanding in this time were mere extensions of medieval thought. Most, however, disagreed with specifics of his thesis, yet agreed that significant changes (often amounting to a "revolution" of some sort) definitely occurred in historical understanding and practices during this period. My paper basically tracks these arguments among 20th-century historians from Fussner's 1962 book to Wyman H. Herendeen's 2007 book William Camden.

Basically, my paper is a historiographical survey (a history of historians) of 20th-century historians on 16th-century historians (a history of histories of historians). Bracing stuff, indeed.

Revisiting the historical revolution revisited...

I turned my paper in Tuesday morning. Huzzah! However, Dr. Daniel Miller, my supervising professor, still needs to read and approve it. He may suggest significant changes. This merry-go-round has not yet stopped.

What is this paper, you ask? I'll explain it briefly. We moderns view history, the past, notions of continuity and change in time, etc., very differently from, well, people in the past. The medieval understanding in particular stood in opposition (and was in some ways superior) to our modern notions of time. (Medievals overemphasized permanence, we overemphasize change.) The Renaissance/Reformation was an imporant transitional period for the understanding and writing of history. The many intellectual, social, and material innovations that occurred during the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries (especially the 16th, in my opinion) caused a shift in our understanding of the past and our relationship to it, and they paved the way for the creation of the modern discipline of historical studies.

Where does my paper, "Historical Revolution Revisited: The Waning Influence of F. Smith Fussner in Tudor-Stuart Historiography," fit into this? The big debate is whether the shifts in ideas and practices in history (and in the Renaissance in general) were gradual or punctuated, evolutionary or revolutionary, political or intellectual or social or material, etc. How to define this shift in historical understanding? F. Smith Fussner, professor of history at Reed College (at the time), published his book The Historical Revolution: English Historical Writing and Thought 1580-1640 in 1962, arguing that nothing short of a "historical revolution" analogous to the widely-acknowledged "scientific revolution" occurred in England between 1580 and 1640 (or 1660, as he sometimes suggests - F. Smith, will you make up your mind!).

Fussner's thesis proved very influential among early modern historians. This is not to say that everyone agreed with him. Some scholars bought his argument in its entirety, and some completely rejected it, arguing that shifts in historical understanding in this time were mere extensions of medieval thought. Most, however, disagreed with specifics of his thesis, yet agreed that significant changes (often amounting to a "revolution" of some sort) definitely occurred in historical understanding and practices during this period. My paper basically tracks these arguments among 20th-century historians from Fussner's 1962 book to Wyman H. Herendeen's 2007 book William Camden.

Basically, my paper is a historiographical survey (a history of historians) on 20th-century historians on 16th-century historians (a history of histories of historians). Bracing stuff, indeed.