Ancient biography, especially the entire genre of hagiography, subordinated any treatment of individual character to the profuse repetition of edifying examples. They were generally about eminent men, but women could qualify as subjects by being martyred. Although biographies written in the Italian Renaissance, such as that of Giorgio Vasari, began to resemble modern biographies, those written in the Northern Renaissance were still of great public figures, by someone who knew them. They were almost totally lacking in psychological insight, personality being swathed in thick layers of virtue. For example, the life of Thomas More, written by his son-in-law, does not even mention that More was the author of Utopia (1516). In the 17th century, however, Izaak Walton (better known today for his classic treatise on angling) wrote some lives of literary figures, adding heroes of culture to those of war and politics as appropriate subjects. The renowned Samuel Johnson (1709–84) has the distinction of being both a biographer (of English poets) and the subject of the biography by James Boswell, Life of Johnson (1791), which was roughly as important for biography as Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–88) was for historiography.

Biographers of contemporaries are often faced with one of two unique challenges. They sometimes discover that the letters, diaries, and other personal documents of the subject that are most necessary for writing the biography have been destroyed, sometimes precisely to prevent a biography from being written. Writers of authorized biographies, however, are often granted privileged access to these materials but are somewhat constrained by the commission. Even when the biographer is not dependent on the subject (or literary executor) for the necessary sources, the relationship between the two persons can be intense. There is likely to be some—perhaps overriding—emotional attraction on the part of the biographer to the person he wishes to write about. Some writers believe that the biographer must become intimately acquainted with the mind and emotions of the subject. This requirement is obviously easier to meet if the two are close friends, but biographers can also generate deep empathy with people long dead. However, it seems to be fascination, not admiration, that is essential, since good biographies have been written by authors who came to despise their subjects. Otherwise there presumably could never have been good biographies of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

Writing the life of a major writer or artist presents different problems—and opportunities—from those presented in writing the life of a statesman. It also makes a vast difference whether or not one is writing about a contemporary. Biographers face the problem of access to private collections as well as the problem of the quality of those collections, which vary enormously in size and informativeness. For example, whereas only about 300 often terse letters by the American novelist Herman Melville survive, there are about 15,000 extant letters by the American writer Henry James—this after James had burned all his copies of his letters and everything else that might have been useful to a biographer.

Although at times faced with the willful destruction of the personal papers of their subjects, almost every biographer of a contemporary figure faces an embarrassment of documents and must at times envy the biographer of such sparsely documented figures as William Shakespeare. Victorian biographers generally surrendered to a plethora of sources by writing extremely long accounts of the life and times of statesmen, larded with extensive verbatim quotations from their correspondence and speeches. The English critic Lytton Strachey (1880–1932) ridiculed these multivolume monuments piled on the bones of the dead, and in his Eminent Victorians (1918) he completely changed the course of biography as a literary genre. In four short and witty sketches of Florence Nightingale, Henry Cardinal Manning, Gen. Charles George Gordon, and Thomas Arnold, Strachey gave vent to all that a modernist generation that had survived World War I felt for its pious and overbearing predecessors. Strachey was particularly adept at pouncing upon and pointing out instances of unconscious hypocrisy. Although his brother James Strachey was the first translator of Sigmund Freud in England, it is not clear that Lytton Strachey had read anything by him, but Freud’s ideas were in the air and could not fail to interest a biographer imbued with “the hermeneutics of suspicion.”

Those seeking a balanced account of these four great Victorians will not find it in Strachey’s pages. Yet though he was sometimes unfair and sacrificed judiciousness to witticisms, Strachey became a model for future biographers who wanted to escape from the thousand-page tomes that monumentalized great statesmen and authors. This meant touching subjects that had previously been passed over, either through prudery or respect for privacy. Thus, the poet Robert Southey’s life of Horatio Nelson, the English naval hero, denied that there was any “crudity” (sexual intercourse) in his relationship with Lady Hamilton. As late as 1951 Roy Harrod published a biography of the influential economist John Maynard Keynes that did not mention homosexuality. By contrast, many biographers in the later 20th century considered their primary task to be the interpretation of their subject’s psychosexual development.

For this enterprise there are, of course, psychological theories. Unfortunately, there are all too many of them. Even if the biographer decides on depth psychology—and there are alternatives—the choice is not much simplified. Although Freudian psychoanalysis has pretty much swept the field in the United States, there are still European scholars influenced by Carl Jung. Furthermore, there are a bewildering variety of alternative Freudian theories—not a few of them propounded by the master himself. So it is not altogether clear what orthodox Freudianism is, but it would emphasize the importance of instinctual drives and of experiences in early childhood.

Even for the psychoanalyst, these are the most difficult areas, and the most difficult time, of human life to get evidence about; this is why full analyses run toward the interminable. For the biographer with little or no access to reports of the dreams of his subject—very few of anyone’s dreams have been recorded—or to the other ways in which the unconscious most often gives itself away, “psychobiography” inevitably becomes speculative. Freud’s own ventures into the field are not reassuring. Art historians have pointed out that the smile of the Mona Lisa was a standard way of painting a certain emotion, not necessarily an unconscious revival of a childhood sexual memory of Leonardo da Vinci. American political historians have been even more dismissive of the joint effort by Freud and William C. Bullitt to write a psychological biography of Woodrow Wilson.

In practice, many psychohistorians have adopted the psychoanalytic theories of the analyst who analyzed them (a few have become psychoanalysts themselves). The problem of getting evidence for psychobiographies is easier, however, if one accepts the American revision of Freudianism known as ego psychology. This theory denies that personality is fixed after the age of five; it can still be substantially influenced by what goes on later, especially in adolescence. The most influential exponent of this approach for biographers was Erik Erikson, who propounded an eight-stage theory of the normative life course and wrote substantial psychobiographies of Martin Luther and Mahatma Gandhi. The overriding theme of both was the way in which an individual leader, working out his own “identity crisis,” was also able to do what Erikson called “the dirty work of his society.” This reinterpretation of the “great man” theory of history (which holds that the course of history is determined by a few individuals) made it possible to argue not only that culture influences adolescent personality development but also that adolescent personality development might at times powerfully influence culture.

Construal of evidence by psychobiographers can be radically different from normal historical practice (as reviewers were not slow to remind Erikson). Historians are accustomed to “weighing” the evidence, almost in a literal sense. Frequent iteration of an attitude generally persuades, even if there are one or two exceptions. For the psychobiographer, an apparently trivial event or slip of the pen can be the vital clue to the personality of the subject. Luther’s toilet habits, treatment of Hitler’s mother by a Jewish doctor who used a gas therapy in an attempt to cure her cancer, or Baudouin I of Belgium’s auto accident a few years before World War II would be dismissed by many historians as of dubious relevance to public careers; to psychobiographers they can be the foundation of an entire work.

Although they cannot study dreams, biographers have in the writings of poets and novelists a kind of public dream. Deciphering these for their disguised biographical content runs against current literary critical as well as historiographical orthodoxy, yet many biographers of writers place great stock in their ability to do this. The conventional historian, asked to describe Nathaniel Hawthorne’s state of mind during the years he lived at Salem, would look for the various documents he produced while he was there. But these throw little light on the question. The literary biographer, in contrast, claims to be able to answer it by interpreting the works that Hawthorne wrote while he was there. One has even said that, no matter how much other, more usual evidence might turn up, he would still stay with what he drew from his interpretation.

Like cliometrics, psychohistory was a fashionable methodology in the 1960s and ’70s but has become distinctly less fashionable since. It has to a degree been discredited by the excesses of some of its partisans, and its difficulties proved greater than most of its early advocates had expected. Just as biography has made a contribution to historiography generally through prosopography (the study of related persons within a given historical context), collective psychology has reappeared in a psychoanalytic study of early adherents of Nazism and in the history of mentalités (semiarticulated or even unconsciously held beliefs and attitudes that set limits to what is thinkable; see below Social and cultural history). Freud’s exercise in group dynamics, Massenpsychologie und Ich-analyse (1921; Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego), was appropriated by Henry Abelove for his fine study The Evangelist of Desire: John Wesley and the Methodists (1990). These are signs that neither the biographical nor the psychohistorical impulse has exhausted its energy.

Diplomatic history

Diplomatic history comes closer than any other branch of history to being “completed”—not in the sense that everything about past diplomatic relationships has been discovered but rather in the sense that apparently all the techniques proper to it have been perfected. Unfortunately, the sharpest set of tools is useless without the matter on which to work, and in this respect historians of 20th- and 21st-century diplomacy are at a considerable disadvantage compared with those of earlier periods.

There is probably no branch of history—excepting perhaps biography—in which access to sources is so tricky, or their interpretation so difficult. The main obstacle to contemporary diplomatic history is the shroud of security that almost every state has thrown over its records, especially states that have mixed conventional diplomacy with covert operations. Historians typically have to wait 30 years or more for state papers to be declassified. The photocopying machine, however, created new opportunities for diplomatic leaks, most notably the publication in 1971 of the Pentagon Papers, which revealed American planning for military intervention in Indochina from World War II until 1968 (see also Vietnam War).

After coming to power in the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks gave historians of the origins of World War I a bonanza by publishing the secret dispatches of the tsarist government, which for the first time revealed the web of alliances and secret agreements that had allowed a Balkan incident eventually to embroil all the great powers. Each government thereupon published its own editions of documents. This plethora of documentation did not allow historians to reach consensus about the responsibility for starting the war, but the blame was certainly allocated more evenly than it had been in the “war guilt” clause of the Treaty of Versailles. Many historians in Britain and the United States concluded that the Germans were no more responsible than anyone else for starting the war. Surprisingly, in 1961 a German historian, Fritz Fischer (1908–99 ), reopened this question with Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegziel politik das kaiserlichen Deutschland, 1914/18 (1961; Germany’s Aims in the First World War, 1967), kindling a lively debate in West Germany.

Comparatively little was said about the diplomacy preceding World War II—and there was little basis for saying anything—until more than the captured papers of Nazi Germany were made completely available (the British prime minister and historian Winston Churchill simply took the relevant English state papers with him when writing his six-volume history of the war). It has seemed obvious that Hitler intended to start a war, if not necessarily on September 1, 1939. But the postwar relations between the United States and the Soviet Union became the subject of controversy when the American historians William Appleman Williams (1921–90) and Gabriel Kolko (1932–2014) challenged the conventional American view that the Soviets intended world conquest and were deterred only by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its nuclear umbrella. Williams and his students, who were influential in the 1960s, produced a series of revisionist accounts of the outbreak of the Korean War and later of the Vietnam War. These were in turn attacked by defenders of the orthodox view.

This sketch of the liveliest issues in postwar diplomatic history would seem to support the view of those who claim that all history is implicated in ideology. The disagreements of diplomatic historians do suggest that political and national passions play an unusually large part in their interpretation of diplomatic history. On the other hand, lack of new techniques does not mean that diplomatic historians are no better at their task than their predecessors were. Some interpretations have been definitively discredited, and signs of convergence have emerged even on such contested topics as the origins of World War I. As the European nations entered the European Union, an effort was made to write a history textbook on which historians from various countries could agree. Although it relied upon a certain amount of euphemism (the German invasion of Belgium in 1914 was referred to as a “transit” of their troops), it did show that, even in this controversial field, some consensus can be achieved.

Economic history

History and economics were once closely related. Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and Karl Marx were all political economists who incorporated historical data into their analyses. A historical school of economics developed in Germany in the late 19th century and was associated with figures such as Gustav von Schmoller (1838–1917). Reacting against the free-trade doctrines of British economists (which would have prevented Germany from protecting its industries until they were strong enough to compete), the historical economists argued that there are no universally valid economic laws and that each country should define its own economic path.

A similar interest in historical development was shown by institutional economists such as the eccentric genius Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929). The American Historical Association and the American Economic Association were founded together and did not separate for several years; it was common in American colleges for historians and economists to be in the same department. From the turn of the 20th century, however, the two disciplines pursued radically different paths. While economists developed ever-more-elaborate mathematical models, historians remained mired in the messy details of the world.

While this division between the disciplines occurred, much good work was done on the workings of preindustrial economies and on the question of why serfdom was introduced in Poland and Russia just as it was dying out in western Europe. In several countries, cost-of-living indexes that covered several centuries were computed. Although these estimates were imperfect (as they still are), they illuminated such famous questions as the causes of the French Revolution and the condition of the working class during the Industrial Revolution in England. The French historian Camille-Ernest Labrousse (1895–1988) showed that in France during the period from 1778 to 1789, a long recession was exacerbated by high bread prices and eventually the bankruptcy of the crown. Believers in “deeper” causes of the revolution treated this conjunction as only a trigger, but since many popular disturbances in the first years of the revolution were bread riots that turned to political violence, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the history of the period would have been quite different under different economic conditions.

Economic history in Britain has always been influenced by the fact that it was the first country to undergo an industrial revolution. In the aftermath of World War II, economic planners looked to Britain for an example of how countries in the developing world might achieve the same transformation. The American economist and political theorist Walt Whitman Rostow (1916–2003), in Stages of Economic Growth (1960), attempted a general theory of how economies industrialize. His six-stage model did not gain general acceptance, but he did raise the issue of long-term economic development, which directed some economists, at least, toward history.

The proposition that the Industrial Revolution was a good thing was universally maintained by historians who were sympathetic to capitalism. Socialist historians, on the other hand, judged it more ambivalently. For orthodox Marxists, only industrialized countries would create a proletariat strong enough to expropriate the means of production, and the enormous productive power of industrial society would be the basis of the “kingdom of plenty” under communism. At the same time, they emphasized the arbitrary way in which industrialization was carried out and the suffering of the workers. Because much of the evidence for the suffering of the workers was in fact anecdotal, a number of economic historians tried to determine whether their standard of living actually declined. Although wage rates were known, industrial workers were often laid off, so their annual income was not a simple multiple of their average wage. Despite the difficulties of the inevitably controversial calculations, it seems to be true that workers’ standard of living at least did not decline, and may even have improved slightly, before 1850. This conclusion did not resolve the issue of their suffering, however, since workers also endured noneconomic losses. The matter continues to be a concern for social and economic historians.

The distinctive feature of the American economy was slavery. One overriding issue for economic historians has been whether slavery was inherently inefficient as well as inhumane and thus whether it might have disappeared through sheer unprofitability had it not been legally abolished. This is an extremely complicated question. An answer requires not only large amounts of data but also data about almost all aspects of the American economy. To see how the data fitted together, historians after World War II drew upon macroeconomic theory, which showed how various inputs affect the gross national product.

There was, however, a further problem: how did the productivity of slave labour compare with the hypothetical product of free labour applied to the same land? In other words, if there had been no slavery, would Southern agriculture have been more (or less) profitable? One attempt to resolve this counterfactual question was offered in Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Economic History (1964) by Robert Fogel, an American economist who shared the Nobel Prize for Economics with Douglass C. North in 1993. Fogel tested the claim that railroads were of fundamental importance in American economic development by constructing a model of the American economy without railroads. The model made some simplifying assumptions: passenger travel was ignored, and since canals were the principal alternatives to railroads, the part of the United States west of the continental divide was also left out. With these provisos, the model showed that the importance of railroads had been exaggerated, because in 1890 the gross national product without railroads would have reached the same level as the actual one.

In Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery (1974), Fogel and his colleague Stanley Engerman addressed the issue of the profitability of slavery, using the methods Fogel had developed in his earlier study. Using evidence only from the last decade of American slavery, they argued that the system was not only profitable but more profitable than free labour would have been. The response to their work illustrates many of the accomplishments and pitfalls of what came to be called cliometrics, the application of statistical analysis to the study of history. It sold more than 20,000 copies, a large number for a scholarly book; it shared the Bancroft Prize for history; and it was the subject of stories and bemused reviews in the popular press. However, because it adopted the French custom of segregating tables and other statistical matter in a second volume—which appeared not simultaneously but several months later—the initial reviewers had access only to the conclusions and the supporting textual arguments. These initial reviews were generally respectful, but when the second volume appeared, many cliometricians attacked its statistical analysis. Other scholars assailed the work for everything from insufficient indignation about the evils of slavery to improper attributions of classical profit-maximizing economic motives to participants in an institution that Thomas Jefferson characterized as “a continuous exercise of the most boisterous of passions.” (Fogel and Engerman argued that slaves were rarely whipped, because whipping would have diminished their capacity for work.)

Some of these criticisms missed the mark. Fogel and Engerman did not undertake even a political economy of slavery, much less a moral evaluation. The most searching critiques, from fellow cliometricians, were arcane and technical. But they resembled disputes in the natural sciences in that the data were publicly available, and fairly well-understood criteria were available to adjudicate the issues. Furthermore, the authors’ main conclusion, which was anticipated by earlier studies, has not been refuted: slavery was indeed profitable and was not withering on the vine in 1861.

Cliometrics was an important innovation because it offered new answers to old questions and provided a methodology better suited to tackling large questions of system and structure. Although it was a new and rather spectacular technique, it did not eclipse older branches of economic history. In the United States, which had pioneered business history, institutional historians continued their work on entrepreneurs and on management tactics, while labour history was avidly pursued not only in the United States but throughout Europe. Historians were also preoccupied by peasants in numbers sufficient to justify a Journal of Peasant Studies, and, since peasants were found all over the world, peasant studies easily became comparative. These studies readily crossed the fluid boundary between economic history and social history. Quantitative analysis of the records left by ordinary people, gathered for cliometric purposes, has brought their experiences to light—the great accomplishment of the social historians of our time.