The Murder Of George Parkman Analysis

Many people would consider history concrete and stable. History cannot be changed and it has a tendency to be perceived as completely factual. However, history is more imaginative than someone might realize. Often, historians will have to fill in missing information through the analysis of facts and evidence. Simon Schama is a strong supporter of the imaginative side of historical analysis; however, Schama devalues his own status as a historian by plainly fabricating important events leading to the murder of George Parkman. Schama’s problematic method to comprehend the much-debated murder of George Parkman begins with his imaginative approach to understanding Ephraim Littlefield. Maier, a historian featured in Murder at Harvard, informs viewers, “The temptation… is, I think, to put words into his mouth.” Maier then mentions that this temptation is troublesome, especially in the case of Littlefield, who left behind nearly no personal information. However, even though Littlefield left almost nothing private behind, Schama claims to hear Littlefield speak through the analysis of Littlefield’s testimony. Goodman, another historian,

While bias is usually unavoidable and imagination is necessary to a historian, Schama makes use of his own beliefs too often and holds these beliefs above fact. His story about the murder disregarded important evidence that could lead to a completely different conclusion. He completely fabricated entire conversations that led directly to the murder in question. Though Schama did admit that his interpretation was “imaginative truth”, his credit as a historian can easily be called into question. His methods sway towards fiction and several historians, some within the documentary, cite this as an issue. Schama’s interpretation of the murder case may be interesting, but it is far from where a historian’s loyalties should