Historians Speaking in the Present Tense

Absolutely! Why? And, why the Boleyn family again? There are lots of stories about the Civil War which many people would be interested in as well as other little known areas of history. James 1 and his Queen, Anne of Denmark. A really interesting time. But the Boleyns have been done to death. I think we could all write a book about them.

I have to admit when doing my family history I've been known to write in the present tense. 'They have six children and James is working as a carpenter' for instance. I have to remind myself it should be the past tense, James was and they had. I think when you're writing it you can feel as though you're there with them!

I loathe it.

What's it meant to achieve? It's history, it's happened, it's in the past. No amount of talking about it in the present tense will change that.

I don't bother with programmes if they're presented like that. I can probably learn more from a book or Professor Google anyway.

It's called the historical present tense and is perfectly acceptable in some circumstances. I agree it can be irritating though.

I don't mind this but I do loathe reenactments!

I can't bear it! It seems to be infectious too. DH does it without noticing.

I understand all the comments here but I have grown to quite like it. It is supposed to give a sense of immediacy and involve us more. For me it is like when I rewind something to watch again. It has been and gone but I want to bring it back fresh and real to the present. It works well in writing too.

I m a tipsy mare I get so engrossed in the story it’s never affected me I just don’t ‘see it’

Curiously, in French, they used the futuretense. Very disconcerting!
And what about Charles II long suffering wife? She would’ve interesting too…

I enjoy it too. It brings a sense or immediacy and involves the reader or viewer in the actions and events.

The opening lines of Hilary Mantel’s The Mirror and the Light which begins immediately after the execution of Anne Boleyn:

Once the queen’s head is severed, he walks away. A sharp pang of appetite reminds him that it is time for a second breakfast, or perhaps an early dinner. This morning’s circumstances are new and there are no rules to guide us. The witnesses who have knelt for the passing of the soul, stand up and put on their hats. Under the hats, their faces are stunned.

But then he turns back, to say a word of thanks to the executioner …

The small body lies on the scaffold where it has fallen; belly down, hands outstretched, it swims in a pool of crimson, the blood seeping between the the planks.

Compare:

Once the queen’s head was severed, he walked away. A sharp pang of appetite reminded him that it was time for a second breakfast, or perhaps an early dinner. That morning’s circumstances were new and there were no rules to guide them. The witnesses who had knelt for the passing of the soul, stool up and put on their hands. Under the hats, their faces were stunned.

But then he turned back, to say a word of thanks to the executioner …

The small body lay on the scaffold where it had fallen; belly down, hands outstretched, it swam in a pool of crimson, the blood seeped between the the planks.

The phrase there are no rules to guide us involves the reader too.

I wonder which version people prefer?

Ah yes but that’s fiction! In documentaries etc I also find it annoying but historians themselves seem to love it. Very odd.

Kate Williams uses it a lot. I wish I were as knowledgable as she.

Kate54

Ah yes but that’s fiction! In documentaries etc I also find it annoying but historians themselves seem to love it. Very odd.

Indeed, but it could equally have been said to camera by, say, Lucy Worsley or similar.

True!

you come across it a lot from guides who are sort of presenters in museums or historical places
they use it when you visit the globe for example where most of the presenters are enthisiastic young actors
it seems to work

I take your point about Hilary Mantel's book Silverbridge but as others have said in documentaries the Historical Present (didn't know it had a name, thanks GrannyRose15) is just annoying ?

Lillie

you come across it a lot from guides who are sort of presenters in museums or historical places
they use it when you visit the globe for example where most of the presenters are enthisiastic young actors
it seems to work

Well, I'm guide in a historical place and I don't feel the slightest need to pretend that what happened decades ago is happening in the present.

Oh, I'm so glad to find that I'm not the only one who hates it! It drives me to distraction, and the off switch. Thank you, grannyrebel7 for starting the thread.

Silverbridge, I must say that I prefer the second version of the passage you quote and find it does give me a sense of immediacy and involvement, whereas the original (?) version in the present tense, just annoys me. I don't care whether it's the Historical Present or the Christmas Present, I hate it!

Wheniwasyourage

Oh, I'm so glad to find that I'm not the only one who hates it! It drives me to distraction, and the off switch. Thank you, grannyrebel7 for starting the thread.

Silverbridge, I must say that I prefer the second version of the passage you quote and find it does give me a sense of immediacy and involvement, whereas the original (?) version in the present tense, just annoys me. I don't care whether it's the Historical Present or the Christmas Present, I hate it!

I preferred the second version, too.

I have to confess that, although I was lent a copy, I couldn't bring myself to read Mantel's first book. It just annoys me too much.

In Denmark this started as a trend amongst journalists, and when we took them up on it, they said that speaking of things in the present tense made them more interesting to the listener or reader.

All right, if the reader or listener has no conception of grammer - otherwise it is plain annoying and to hear a historian do it would drive me mad.

Richard the first took part in the First Crusade - turning that sentence into the present tense is a gimmick a teacher might just use to waken a sleepy class up, but shouldn't be employed in a serious discussion for an adult audience.

I watch a lot of historical documentaries and I've really never noticed it. But then I loved the Wolf Hall trilogy.

I'm enjoying The Boleyns, I hadn't realised how little I knew about their history before Anne arrived at Court.

A friend of mine, historian Dr. Owen Emerson, is one of those involved in ‘The Boleyns’. I haven’t managed to watch it yet.

I like the 'historical present' being used in a limited way, to involve the hearer/reader.
A lot of it at once could get a bit wearing, tho.

FarNorth

I like the 'historical present' being used in a limited way, to involve the hearer/reader.
A lot of it at once could get a bit wearing, tho.

I cannot understand how it can 'involve' the hearer/reader. It's history. We all know what 'history' is, it's a narrative about past events. Trying to make it sound as though it's currently happening seems to me to be verging on insulting the intelligence of the audience by deciding they can only be engaged with the topic if it's presented as happening NOW.