Historians & Their Discipline: The Call of Southeast Asian History

Introduction

Introduction by NICHOLAS TARLING Old men forget, Shakespeare suggested, and perhaps, if Queen Elizabeth were not at the theatre, he would have included old women, too. They may also remember, and perhaps be encouraged to do so, and to reflect. These were practices to which I found I had submitted myself by reading through the thousands of letters my mother and I had exchanged over the years (hers far more numerous than mine, I fear). Then I thought I might encourage others in my field of interest to submit themselves to something similar. How was it that they had got into Southeast Asian history-writing? How had their practice and their attitudes changed over the subsequent years?—influenced, perhaps, by the course of contemporary events, by developments in the discipline, by career opportunities, by conjunctions and contingencies. And had they anything to say about the future?—even though historians are diffident about prophecy, and the old know that the young may, more or less respectfully, be impatient with them and the advice they may even so be tempted to offer. Looking back on my life, I concluded that one of its good fortunes was that it coincided with a great expansion in Southeast Asian historiography , in quantity, range, and sophistication, and I had enjoyed trying to be part of it. I had also enjoyed the personal contacts it had brought. The growth of the subject over the decades following the Second World War meant that it was possible to build and sustain something of a network among those involved, even though they were spread round the globe, and for me, in Terra Australis Incognita, it was the more important to do so. Perhaps I could once more risk drawing on the goodwill and good fellowship I had been shown. I had a remarkably positive response. Some good friends are, of course, no longer with us, and some prefer to look to their current activities rather than their past achievements. Many others, though ‘retired’, were stimulated to recall the past. Others again were still very active in the field but also ready to take what might be called a contextual approach. They found pleasure in the novelty of the task as well as its challenges. A few, though interested, found themselves too busy in other historical projects, which was both bad news and good. And no doubt—an old man 1 forgetting—I have omitted to approach some I could and should have approached. The essays, which have only been lightly edited, vary in length and emphasis. They bring up issues that always concern scholars, such as the freedom to research and write and publish, and that concern historians, such as the impact of the contemporary and the capacity for objectivity. Two striking features perhaps less common, but possibly related to the sense that this was in some sense a pioneering venture, are the diverse reasons for the engagement of the authors and the enthusiasm they felt and continue to feel. I am grateful for the support of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, which has over its long history supported the writing of history of many parts of Southeast Asia. Perhaps on its 130th birthday I can add yet another personal note. It was in a volume dated 1957—its 80th—that the Society published my first book. NICHOLAS TARLING 2 ...