How Valid Is Biography As A Historical Genre?

Historically, biography is the narrative study of a life, with assessments of personality, relationships, and social contexts drawn from evidence and it has recently attracted increasing academic and critical interest. The 2004 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography contains the lives of more than 55, 000 British historical figures and the Journal of Historical Biography was founded in 2007. The revival of the narrative style as a historical genre, of which biographical studies are perhaps the purest form, has been seen as a reaction to the 'indigestible statistical tables, dry analytical argument, and jargon-ridden prose' of the analytical method of historiographical inquiry. The decline of economic determinism has led to a 'belated recognition of the importance of power, of personal political decisions by individuals, and of the chances of battle, [which has] forced historians back to the narrative mode'. Narrative and biographical history, however, can be highly problematical and is heavily criticised. This essay will summarise the main obstacles in biography, and will examine the idea that biography is not in conflict with other historiographical methodologies, and instead illuminates, supports, and defines them. It will provide an example of a medieval biographical work, the Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, to show that modern perceptions of key historical developments have been based to a great extent on biographical sources. It will further suggest that re-humanising historical processes through narrative biography contributes positively to both academic plurality and the relevance of historiographical writing.

There is often little acceptance of narrative in many disciplines of history; 'The analytical and expository voice will always prove more effective than the narrative mode of writing.' The chief criticism of biography as historiographical literature is the broad acceptance that history is about more than individuals. It is also the study of wider social, economic, political and intellectual movements, whose impact is greater than those involved in them. Geoffrey Elton puts the case that firstly no individual was important enough for the history of an age to be written about him and secondly the chronological limits of a life rarely define a historical period. Elton's views, and those of other prominent historians, are reinforced by the lack of biographical training and research undertaken by historians (biographical studies at most universities are a literature and creative writing, or a political study). Further issues with biography as a historical genre are that the biographer may identify overmuch with the subject, as Prestwich claims Richard Southern did with the twelfth century Bishop of Lincoln Robert Grosseteste, to the detriment of the objective neutrality that is allegedly central to the modern historian's conduct. Biography, especially of earlier, pre-printing histories, are full of extrapolations which can descend into irrelevancy. Narrative biography does not explain long-term trends well, and its focus on the highest members of society - prelates, nobles, kings and queens - is a serious concern. In the words of Prestwich: 'Constitutional history, economic history, and the history of towns and manors are the staple elements of the medieval historian's trade that a biographical approach can do little more than approach tangentially.'

Possibly the most problematical area of biography for medievalists is that only extraordinary people's lives have been recorded. This leaves a dearth of evidence with which to reconstruct the lives of ordinary men and women. Court records and incidental references can give the broad structure of an ordinary life, but the detail required to enrich them is at best fragmentary. While postmodernists might conceive of constructing the past by populating it with imaginary characters, the question of whether this is a valid historical methodology remains. This exceptionalist issue also creates severe limitations on the study of women in medieval society. In most medieval societies, unmarried women and wives had no legal independence, so far smaller amounts of documentary evidence survives with which a biographer can construct a narrative. The social class problems of medieval biography are compounded by medieval sexism; again only the educated female elites leave behind written accounts, and the proportion of their writings that survive are small. Much of our knowledge of Eleanor of Castile, for example, comes from a single extant letter from the Queen to an abbot, thanking him for the loan of a book. From this single letter however, can be gathered that she was interested in gardens, chess, hunting, arranging marriages, and embroidery. It is also valuable in the contextual suppositions it provides; that women (at least high-born women) held private correspondence with important intellectual and political figures, that they were engaged in scholarship, and that the loan and copying of books was something engaged in by the social elite. Extraordinary people are the centre of any historical study, and to piece together the lives of these men and women allows informed decisions to be made about their impact on the greater world. The immense difficulty of this in medieval history means it must rely heavily on supposition. This only encourages wider biographical work to be done in order to create a more complex comparative matrix, which can support, detail, and expand the historical processes that shape those lives.

Medieval historians must take particular care with contemporary biographical works, as the evidence upon which they rely is less comprehensive, often invented, and far more focused on the legalistic, religious, or political considerations of the time. While narrative history was central to historiographical literature throughout the medieval period, there was no tradition of writing a recognisable modern biography. The chronicles and lives of saints, magnates and kings are less concerned with the accurate representation of human lives and more with the appraisal and propagation of political reigns or religious teachings. Medieval writing also follows intricate forms and symbolism that require modern scholars to contextualise biographical accounts to better understand their significance. It is not until the Paston letters in fifteenth century that we see a truly biographical collection of English writing, relatively free from embellishment or symbolism. Errors in translation, the loss of parts or whole sources, and the medieval scholarly need for the political patronage all contribute to the scepticism with which historians must view medieval sources when searching for biographical evidence. The importance of the medieval biography as a historical genre comes not necessarily with the content but with the context and how wider themes may be extrapolated from them. Perhaps the most overwhelming impression that can be gained from the hagiographic or chronicle traditions (especially of the 'Twelfth Century Renaissance') is the contrast between their moral, intellectual, and political complexity, and the brutality and cynicism that we are aware of from wider sources.

If biography is to be considered a valid historical genre, then it must contribute to our accurate representations of the past. Chivalry is one of the most important and debated topics within the social historiography of the medieval period. Much of the modern understanding of chivalry is drawn from medieval biographical works such as La Vie du Prince Noir and the Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal. Other relevant figures, such as the crusader knights Saint Louis of France and Godfrey de Bouillon, or the mythical Gawain and Galahad of the Arthurian tradition, are all described through the biographical tradition. The figure of William the Marshal is central to our written evidence of chivalric warfare and traditions. In their complexity we find the two essential dichotomies of chivalry; loyalty to God and one's personal honour against loyalty to one's liege lord, and military success against the precepts of chivalrous warfare. Chivalric chroniclers of the French tradition, such as Jean Froissart, were more concerned with moralistic assessments of the lives of great men (and occasionally, women) than accurately documenting their lives. This itself, however, allows the historian to examine, even tangentially, the contemporary social issues of the time and creates the environment in which a biographer can aid in the construction of a historical narrative. As an example, in the Histoire, much of the writing is concerned with showing William the Marshal in the most attractive contemporary light. This is evidenced by our knowledge of the author's intentions; he was writing for the Earl's son and clearly would not wish to present his patron with an unflattering portrait of his father. The manuscri pt was compiled chiefly from the account of William Marshal's surviving squire, John D'Erlay. This is not a biography in the ecclesiastical tradition but one that is written for the pleasure of secular lords. The Histoire is also written for contemporaries, or near-contemporaries, of the subject. In this it is rare among medieval sources and it may be presupposed that it has far less of the exaggeration and embroidery that often clouds medieval life-writing. This work provides historians with a rare opportunity to see how a secular writer imagined his knightly audience would want to be portrayed. In the words of the biographer Georges Duby, the Histoire is "infinitely precious: the memory of chivalry in an almost pure state, about which, without this evidence, we should know virtually nothing".

There is a passage in the Histoire that provides one of the most informed and nuanced contemporary views of 'chivalric warfare' that has been found. Lines 1628 to 1740 concern a skirmish in which the Marshal is captured and his uncle, the Earl of Salisbury, is killed. There are several reasons to presume that this may be a more accurate representation of knightly warfare. The first is the target audience; lords, knights and their retainers, rather than clergy or wealthy nobles or townspeople. The second is the author and his sources; he was a retainer of the Marshal family and drew his knowledge from a man who fought with William the Marshal. While we must acknowledge the bias by the author in favour of his subject, as with other medieval sources it is the context and incidental details which draws interest. Although there is much information packed into the passage, several key points have helped to broaden and reinforce our knowledge of medieval warfare. The first is the attitude to discipline and courage; lines 1640-1644 present the Marshal as head-strong, impetuous, and courageous. From this may be gained appreciation that for the knightly classes, personal glory and courage on the field was more important that military discipline. The next is further evidence of the primacy of ransom in combat; lines 1698-1720 concern his capture. The poor treatment of the captured Marshal is seen as an unusual, and used to further boost his image for the audience. It is possible therefore to suppose that this was unusual treatment, and (at least for noble prisoners) it was expected that there was a certain level of comfort and respect for captured knights. This, combined with other passages in the Histoire, give us an impression of knightly warfare far removed from that portrayed by chivalric and ecclesiastic chroniclers. The warfare portrayed is less bloody, more individualistic, and far more concerned with ransom and revenge than strategy or patriotism.

The Histoire also provides one the most detailed descri ptions of a medieval tournament in the primary literature (Lagny-sur-Marne, 1179). The tournament (lines 4424-4975) is one of the central pieces in the Histoire and underlines the primacy of tourneys in the medieval mind. As well as being a fine piece of descri ptive and imaginative writing, the information it provides us with is indispensable in creating the image of the knightly tourney that is held to be a centrality in the life of medieval warriors. Line 4789 gives us a clear indication of the importance, and complexity, of heraldry in the twelfth century. Lines 4812 to 4815 provide us with the clearest evidence for the economic stimulation provided by tournaments. This incentive, clearly presented and without any embellishment, demonstrates that chivalry, and the knightly classes, saw no particular shame in the economic benefits of warfare, and indeed that they were central to a knight's existence. Again there is a contrast between the avowed generosity and monetary distain of chivalric traditions in other contemporary literature, and what the practitioners of chivalry themselves understood and respected, portrayed in the Histoire. The insights gained from the Histoire are not limited to chivalry alone; lines 716 to 752 are concerned wholly with William's appearance. This is one of the most detailed descri ptions of a medieval figure to be found. That the appearance of the knight is important enough to be described in such length demonstrates the importance of looks and dress in the High Medieval period. When comparing the Histoire with other sources of the time, it is possible to reinforce our understanding of the medieval attitude that external looks reflected an individual's personality and thus the degree of favour they found in God. Line 732 compares the Marshal to an 'Emperor of Rome', which allows us to draw a conclusion that there was, at this time, an associative link between nobility and Roman modes. That so much information can be gained from a single surviving biographical account demonstrates the importance and validity of the study of biographies within historical inquiry. Were it not for the desire to construct an account of a great man then much less would be known about the realities of twelfth-century chivalry.

Braudel and other social-scientifically orientated historians distrust the narrative on the basis of its lack of impartiality. They claim that science, in its attempt to critically evaluate objective truths, has to a great extent been the abandonment of narrative and its replacement with what some theorists labelled the dissertative voice. History, however, shares very few similarities with science. It is unrepeatable, many of the results of events cannot be quantified, and there are few theories and no laws that govern the study of history. Human behaviour is not entirely traceable through rationality and statistics, and the increasing diversification of historical interest is evidence of the growing acceptance that history is not a monolithic discourse but a pluralistic field of study that requires an equally diverse intellectual medium and range of approaches to cover it. In narrative biographies it is necessary to construct a clearly delineated chronological progression. While some historians claim that this is a hindrance to the clear understanding of wider historical themes, it requires the writer to structure and develop the character in a way that is easier to understand. From birth through childhood to old age and death, all humans follow a linear trajectory in their economic and social environment. Following this discrete, relatable timeline of events not only improves understanding and enjoyment of historical literature but also creates a more tangible connection to the absolute essence of history; the study of human experience. They provide us with both a snapshot and a background to the social and political histories of the analytical method, colouring and outlining it with reality. While this is of some academic interest, biography also creates a far more engaging and lively platform for historical interest. Biography is one of the most successful genres of global literature and its popularity is reflected in the easier identification and more lyrical styles of writing. While 'popular history', normally narrative and often biographical, is suspect in academic circles, as long as it shows the proper appreciation of the historical knowledge and methodologies then it can only contribute to the greater spread of historical understanding and interest. While biographical inaccuracies can create and perpetuate historical myths, such as the over-study of the life of Mary Queen of Scots, accurate and well-researched biography has a chance of changing these attitudes in the wider historical readership.

History is the impact of events, forces, institutions, and individuals on other individuals, and without understanding those individuals it is impossible to understand the greater picture itself. Every movement, social or intellectual, is created and defined by people; without appreciating the lives of the historical actors it is hard to appreciate the movement. If it is the purpose of historical literature to re-create history 'as it actually was', then it is vital to appreciate, even theoretically, the motivations and limitations of prominent historical figures. Biographical studies can turn up details and connections that the 'broad brush' of history can miss out. Certainly many important historical studies are on fields unrelated to biographical human activity, such as disease or environmental change, but these natural events are, to a historian, understood only through the prism of human historical traditions. While the evidentiary and theoretical difficulties of medieval biography are large, they are the same problems that confront any form of medieval historiography and must be approached with the same caution; much of human history, particularly written history, concerns remembering and honouring people's lives. The validity of biography as a historical genre may be limited to being the history of human lives, but taken together the studies of those lives create our histories.