Reputation and Reality

Anyone who reads a lot of history, as I do, will frequently encounter assessments of historical figures, both in terms of their deeds and their characters. Historians will provide opinions as to whether a particular political or military leader was "good" in the sense that they fulfilled their role successfully, and whether they were "good" as far as their character was concerned, that is, whether they were humane and just or cruel and arbitrary. Even those who do not read much history will encounter such judgements regarding the reputation of historical figures; indeed many people will make such judgements themselves -- or more likely they will regurgitate judgements that they have learned from others. But, as should be obvious to anyone who spends a few moments' thought on the issue, historical reputations are usually based on a very narrow and often misleading set of facts, and are indeed often somewhat divorced from reality. The unreliability of many opinions regarding the reputations of historical figures is made clear by the fact that different sources can reach diametrically opposed conclusions about the same person. This can even be seen when the person in question is someone who is only recently dead, such as Ronald Reagan or (to take a pop culture example) Michael Jackson. Even cases where there seems to be a relative consensus among most sources, such as the Roman emperor Caligula, sometimes upon close examination are not that clear cut.

Many historical figures have wildly diverging reputations, with a number of different factors behind the variation. At the most basic level, the actual facts of a person's life are often unclear and sometimes end up being wildly distorted. For instance, the Chinese emperor Qin Shihuang almost certainly did not have a mountain painted red (the color worn by condemned criminals) because he was angry at the god of the mountain for impeding his progress, the claim that the emperor Caligula tried to have his horse made consul is dubious, and most of the more lurid stories about Edgar Allen Poe's personal life were invented by a rival who claimed to have been made his literary executor (and who was widely reputed to be a dishonest, unpleasant person). Regarding Caligula (whose real name was Gaius Caesar, Caligula being a nickname), he now has a very infamous reputation, and even many historians say that he was probably tyrannical or insane or both, but some others have suggested that he was in fact a fairly decent emperor whose biggest mistake was badly antagonizing Rome's senatorial class, the class from which the Roman historians who later wrote about him came, such that his deeds were distorted or even made up entirely to vilify him. Other examples abound, such as the Chinese emperor Wang Mang, who was vilified by the historians of the Later Han dynasty which replaced his regime, or Richard III of England, whose record was distorted by members of the court of the man who overthrew him, Henry VII, to the point that they invented fictions about his appearance, such as the claim that he was hunchbacked (an image which Shakespeare unfortunately popularized).

Then there are facts that are certainly or at least probably true but open to varying interpretations, such as the time when Alexander of Macedon (commonly called Alexander "the Great", a name which in itself carries subjective notions about the reputation he deserved) killed his friend Cleitus in a rage. The two were drunk and trading insults, but exactly what was said, who was being more aggressive, what motivated the quarrel, and whether there were underlying motives involved are all subject to some dispute. To take another example, I recently read a book about a Texas family (one that I happened to be descended from) during the period between Texas's declaration of independence from Mexico and the end of the US Civil War. Sam Houston, who was the victor in the battle which won Texan independence, as well as serving as the president of Texas, as a senator, and as governor of the state after it joined the US, is frequently mentioned in the book, as he lived nearby and was an acquaintance of a number of the people in the family. While most people today view Houston positively, this book takes a more negative view, citing among other things his frequent drunkenness and his ambition. Towards the end of his life, Houston lost most of his popularity in Texas due to his opposition to the state's secession from the Union before the Civil War. This account takes the view that his sole or at least primary reason for his position was that he had ambitions to run for US president, something which obviously couldn't happen if Texas left the Union. While Houston clearly was ambitious, it is also quite possible that he opposed secession out of principle or simply because, as he said himself, it was a bad idea that would result in a war that the South would lose. Without getting inside his head, we obviously can't know what his true motivation was, and so whether his motivation was positive or negative is clearly a matter of interpretation (even aside from the issue of whether one agrees with the position he took or not). Similarly, Abraham Lincoln's actions during the Civil War led him to be considered either a savior and liberator (by most Northerners and African-Americans) or an undemocratic tyrant (by many white Southerners). In this case, the same actions were being viewed from drastically different perspectives, leading to contrasting interpretations.

But perhaps the most crucial deciding factor governing a historical figure's reputation is emphasis; that is to say, which events and actions one chooses to focus on when evaluating the person. In many cases, the way a person is generally regarded is based on how they acted with regard to a single event, with the result that someone with an otherwise solid record may be viewed negatively due to one major blunder, or someone who was highly flawed may be seen favorably due to success with regard to a particularly important event. An example of the latter is Winston Churchill, whose successful leadership of Britain in World War II is what is generally remembered about him. What is less remembered is that he was a diehard imperialist who called Gandhi a "half-naked fakir", and as British colonial secretary he was largely responsible for the creation of Iraq, a country with arbitrarily drawn borders containing three different ethnic groups who didn't get along, making him directly responsible for problems that plague the Middle East to this day. Often different people will focus on different events in the life of the same individual. Ronald Reagan is viewed by many conservatives as a great president due to his perceived victory in the Cold War (though how much credit he deserves for that is debatable) as well as his taxation and social policies. Of course those same policies are strongly criticized by liberals, who are also more likely to focus on events like the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan's support for dictators like Pinochet and Saddam Hussein, and his frequent ignorance of what was going on around him. Likewise, after the recent death if Michael Jackson, his fans focused on his musical legacy (though how great that is obviously remains subjective), while his detractors focused on his alleged pedophilia (though it should be remembered that he was found not guilty) and his eccentricity. And after Ted Kennedy died, while the majority of people talked about his achievements as a legislator and his long-time struggle for various liberal causes, some detractors chose to dwell on the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident, in which he drove a car into a tidal channel and left his young woman passenger behind to drown while he escaped. Though many of those who raise this incident wildly exaggerate in their criticism, some going so far as to call Kennedy a murderer when even the worst possible interpretation of the facts shows that the woman's death was accidental, he was still guilty of serious negligence at best. But this of course begs the question of how much good someone has to do to balance out one or more major mistakes or evil deeds.

This latter question is an extremely vital one when it comes to evaluating historical figures, but the answer is necessarily subjective. A close examination of any person's history will reveal both good and bad, even in the best and worst individuals. Obviously in some cases the evil deeds so far outweigh any good ones that a negative assessment is a given, with people like Hitler and Stalin being among the most obvious examples. For figures that are less prominent, a single egregiously evil deed will outweigh any positives, such as the unfortunately numerous cases of perpetrators of bloody massacres of innocent people, including Reginald Dyer (responsible for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in India), Ernest Medina (the highest-ranking officer at the My Lai massacre), and the various white civilians and soldiers responsible for massacres of Native Americans. On the other hand, some individuals did sufficient good that, at least in most people's minds, their virtues clearly outweigh any faults. But in most cases, there are enough examples of both good and bad deeds that one could easily go either way in an overall assessment, depending as suggested above on the weight given to different deeds. Does Augustus Caesar's competent rulership and establishment of Pax Romana outweigh his utter ruthlessness and responsibility for numerous killings? Do Alexander's impressive military achievements and spread of Greek civilization outweigh his drunkenness, fits of rage, and occasional tyrannical behavior? Do Tang Empress Wu Zetian's able executive skills and defiance of patriarchal tradition outweigh her supposed cruelty and use of secret police against dissent? By modern standards, the answer would probably be no in all those cases, but nevertheless an objective assessment would have to acknowledge both the good and the bad, as well as the unfortunate fact that ruthlessness and cruelty were standard behavior for rulers and leaders in those times. Ultimately, when judging historical figures, we should remember that no one is perfect (or even perfectly bad), and we should try to get as much information as possible, both positive and negative, before reaching even a tentative conclusion.