The purpose of this thesis is to examine Holocaust denial and professional historiography. Although much has been written about both subjects, the issue of distinguishing between them seems to have been largely ignored. They are, however, linked because of the way deniers conduct their business: in the attempt to make credible the claim that the Holocaust never happened, deniers mimic the styles and conventions traditionally employed by professional historians. Using footnotes and writing in the third person, deniers hope to get the surface right and make their readers believe their work. But appearances are deceiving, for deniers do not do history and are not historians. Theirs is a claim that defies morality and any sense of historical reality. Professional historians, while undoubtedly recognizing the moral bankruptcy of deniers and certainly not accepting their work as historical writing, have failed to make evident enough that deniers are not historians. Moreover, those who have attempted to refute deniers and not often have these been professional historians have usually done so on the basis of evidence: they have gone back to the data and shown how deniers have falsified or misrepresented it. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with that method, my own tack is different. At the same time as I take for granted the fact that deniers are not historians, what I aim to do is show how that is the case. Thus, this is partly a way beyond factual analysis, and partly the framework for factual refutation should it ever become necessary. Until deniers do history, however, evidence-based refutation is not necessary, and this very recognition should be implicit and explicit in any examination of Holocaust denial. My hope is to make this clear in three distinct but nevertheless related chapters. The first is about the evolution of Holocaust denial and how deniers have, especially in recent years, attempted to convey the appearance of legitimate scholarship. In the second, I focus on competing narratives as part of my effort to show that the appearance of denial literature is just part of deniers mode of deception. There is a major difference between competing narratives that are compatible historical narratives vs. historical narratives and between competing narratives that are incompatible historical narratives vs. denial literature. Drawing comparisons between the two should make more evident the genre-specific characteristics of history-writing and Holocaust denial. They are not, and can never be, the same, no matter how much deniers may try to convince us otherwise. But what to do about this dichotomy? That question is largely the basis for my third chapter. It is my contention that turning to the evidence cannot be the only method by which to distinguish between history and denial. More is required to convince others of the falsity of deniers claims, and for me this is a larger issue, one that must take into account not just how but also why we write about the past. Lost is the sense that there is an ethical component to history-writing, specifically as this relates to events like the Holocaust, the issues surrounding which seem to require no less than a general notion of right-wrong. Judging between accounts thereby takes on a more meaningful role in the sense that focusing solely on issues of true-false tends to minimize the importance of the Holocaust as lesson. So, too, I think, does this lend itself rather easily to the disconcerting placement of post-modernism/relativism and Holocaust denial under the same sign. That is, Holocaust denial is untrue, and because post-modernists are often condemned precisely because they question the very notions of truth and objectivity in historical writing, deniers and post-modernists are often linked. However, such a narrow focus risks missing the forest for the trees. Instead of looking solely at how post-modernism threatens the truth, history would be better served through the use of post-modern concepts in order to make more evident the ethical component of the discipline of history. In fact, this is what a number of scholars from other disciplines have suggested, for it is in the meaning of the Holocaust the Holocaust as lesson that we have the best prevention against denial. Our discipline, after all, is comprised of much more than facts. The more effectively we impart this to students and readers, the better the chance they will understand who historians really are, what they really do, and why it is important. This alone should make clearer the idea that deniers are not historians, and that what they say is wrong on much more than just a factual level.

Canadian historians periodically reassess the state of their craft, including their role as conveyors of the past to the Canadian public. With each review since the late 1960s, some Canadian historians have attempted to distance the profession from the work of those scholars labelled national historians. Three of the most prominent of these national historians were Arthur Lower, Donald Creighton, and W.L. Morton, whose work was once popular among both professional historians and the general population. Drawing primarily upon reviews of their monographs, this thesis tracks the changing status of national history within English-Canadian historiography since 1945 by examining how Canadian historians have received the work and assessed the careers of Arthur Lower, Donald Creighton, and W.L. Morton.<p> National history can be broadly defined as the history of a specific nation, more typically, a nation-state. While the specific characteristics of national history have, like other types of history, changed over time, Canadian national history in the decades following the end of the Second World War used strong scholarship and clear, readable prose to communicate a specific vision of Canada to the general public. While Lower, Creighton, and Morton applied differing interpretations to their historical research, they all employed these components of national history within their work. After the Canadian Centennial, a new cohort of baby boomer historians brought a different set of values to their understanding of history, and the interpretations so widely acclaimed during the 1950s and early 1960s failed to persuade this new generation of Canadian historians. The lasting reputation of each of these three national historians has been highly dependent on whether each scholars preferred interpretation aligns with the new values held by the new generation of Canadian historians. While W.L. Mortons western perspective fit in well with the regional concerns of the 1980s, and Arthur Lower retained a reputation as an early innovator of social history, Donald Creightons career has been remembered for the strident opinions of his later life, especially regarding the growth of Quebec nationalism and the increasing influence of the United States within Canadian national affairs. It is Creightons diminished reputation among English Canadian historians that is most commonly linked to the moniker of national history. As the gap between the postwar understanding of Canada and the post-Beatles vision for Canada continued to widen throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Canadian historical community, on the whole, continued to equate all national history with the reactionary reputation of an aging Donald Creighton. While this simplistic view provides convenient shorthand for the genre of national history, it fails to appreciate both the substantial contributions of national historians to Canadian historiography and the widespread influence of their work on the reading Canadian public.

This thesis argues for a new understanding of criticism in Foucauldian genealogy based on the role played by the values of Michel Foucault’s audience in motivating suspicion. Secondary literature on Foucault has been concerned with understanding how Foucault’s works can be critical of cultural practices in the contemporary West when his accounts take the form of descriptive history. Commentaries offered heretofore have been insufficient for explaining the basis of Foucault’s criticism of cultural practices because they have failed to articulate the relation of the genealogist to her present normative context—the social and political values and goals that, in part, define the position of the genealogist within her culture. This thesis shows why previous accounts are insufficient for explaining Foucauldian genealogical critique, and it argues for a simple alternative warranted by Foucault’s writing.

This dissertation project, which recovers the feminist invention of 19th-century actress and author Adah Menken, proves the efficacy of conducting historigraphic recoveries of heretofore forgotten and elided female rhetors. I situate Adah’s visual and written performances within the materiality of Victorian social codes, positioning her as a feminist commentator worthy of inclusion in our remembrances of feminist discourses. I use archival sources including carte de visites (CDVs) and Adah’s letters and poetry as heuristics for gendered critique, to analyze how she resisted the master narrative of Victorian society and its accompanying codes governing public and private feminine behavior. My objectives are three-fold: to use archival recovery as a method to unearth and evaluate what feminist inquiry can accomplish; to argue for the feminist intentions of a previously unknown female writer; and to offer an opportunity to discover cross-disciplinary connections for rhetorical recoveries. Feminist inquiry is itself an exemplar of rhetorical invention, the idea of making a path. In my dissertation project, I illustrate how Adah Menken blazed a path in her personal and public rhetorics. For my principal goal of asserting Adah’s importance as a feminist rhetor, I use primary sources to demonstrate that her invention and resistance provide fertile ground for vital feminist inquiry. As a secondary means of asserting the significance of archival feminist research, I also offer my Adah Menken recovery as a case study for examining ideas of resistance and subversion to dominant master narratives. For this application, I use Judith Butler’s theory of performativity and Michel Foucault’s ideas surrounding the topic of resistance. Ultimately, the convergence of theoretical and practical applications for rhetorical recoveries, both of which I describe in-depth in my dissertation, serve to re-connect fields of inquiry and make them relevant to scholars across the Academe.

In spite of a lively debate during the last century, there is still no scholarly consensus about the identity of the opponents in Colossians. The aim of this essay is not to put forward yet another attempt to solve this complex historical problem, but rather to examine how boundaries are drawn between the author and the opponents in Colossians and how similar boundaries are maintained, developed or even created in scholarly historiography. In what Jonathan Z. Smith refers to as the “Protestant Historiographic Myth”, nineteenth and early twentieth century scholars of biblical studies often understood early Christian developments in terms of an original purity that was lost at a later stage. According to this historiographic construction, the essence of Christianity was distorted through interaction with the cultural and religious environment of the Roman Empire and through the incorporation of pagan elements. Throughout this essay, I argue that this essentialist conception of early Christianity has shaped the construction of the opponents of Colossians in scholarly literature. In studies of Colossians, many modern scholars have, problematically, recreated the dichotomy between an original apostolic Christianity and later Hellenized deviations. This legacy of the “Protestant Historiographic myth” is mainly expressed in two ways, either as an opposition between the author’s pure apostolic Christianity and the opponents, who are understood as a syncretistic group, composed of a mixture of various Hellenistic elements, or as a dichotomy between Christianity, as represented by the author, and “religion”, as represented by the opponents.

In the post-Second World War period, the medium of film has been arguably the leading popular culture protagonist of a demonized Adolf Hitler. Between 1968 and 1990, thirty-five English-language films featuring representations of Hitler were released in cinemas, on television, or on home video. In the 1968 to 1979 period, fifteen films were released, with the remaining twenty coming between 1980 and 1990. This increase reveals not only a growing popular fascination with Hitler, but also a tendency to use the Führer as a sign for demonic evil. These representations are broken into three categories (1) prominent; (2) satirical; (3) contextualizing which are then analyzed according to whether a representation is demonizing or humanizing. Out of these thirty-five films, twenty-three can be labeled as demonizing and nine as humanizing, and there are three films that cannot be appropriately located in either category. In the 1968 to 1979 period, four films employed prominent Hitler representations, five films satirized Hitler, with six contextualizing films. The 1980s played host to five prominent representations, six satires, and nine contextualizing films. In total, there are nine prominent representations, eleven satires and fifteen contextualizing films. Arguing that prominent representations are the most influential, this study argues that the 1968 to 1979 period formed and shaped the sign of a demonic Führer, and its acceptance is demonstrated by films released between1980 and 1990. However, the appearance of two prominent films in the 1980s which humanized Hitler is significant, for these two films hint at the beginnings of a breakdown in the hegemony of the Hitler sign. The cinematic demonization of Hitler is accomplished in a variety of ways, all of which portray the National Socialist leader as an abstract figure outside of human behaviour and comprehension. Scholarly history is also shown to have contributed to this mythologizing, as the survival myth and myth of the last ten days have their origins in historiography. However, since the 1970s film has arguably overtaken historiography in shaping popular conceptions of the National Socialist leader. In addition to pointing out the connections between film and historiography, this study also suggests other political, philosophical, and cultural reasons for the demonization of Adolf Hitler.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine Holocaust denial and professional historiography. Although much has been written about both subjects, the issue of distinguishing between them seems to have been largely ignored. They are, however, linked because of the way deniers conduct their business: in the attempt to make credible the claim that the Holocaust never happened, deniers mimic the styles and conventions traditionally employed by professional historians. Using footnotes and writing in the third person, deniers hope to get the surface right and make their readers believe their work. But appearances are deceiving, for deniers do not do history and are not historians. Theirs is a claim that defies morality and any sense of historical reality. Professional historians, while undoubtedly recognizing the moral bankruptcy of deniers and certainly not accepting their work as historical writing, have failed to make evident enough that deniers are not historians. Moreover, those who have attempted to refute deniers and not often have these been professional historians have usually done so on the basis of evidence: they have gone back to the data and shown how deniers have falsified or misrepresented it. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with that method, my own tack is different. At the same time as I take for granted the fact that deniers are not historians, what I aim to do is show how that is the case. Thus, this is partly a way beyond factual analysis, and partly the framework for factual refutation should it ever become necessary. Until deniers do history, however, evidence-based refutation is not necessary, and this very recognition should be implicit and explicit in any examination of Holocaust denial. My hope is to make this clear in three distinct but nevertheless related chapters. The first is about the evolution of Holocaust denial and how deniers have, especially in recent years, attempted to convey the appearance of legitimate scholarship. In the second, I focus on competing narratives as part of my effort to show that the appearance of denial literature is just part of deniers mode of deception. There is a major difference between competing narratives that are compatible historical narratives vs. historical narratives and between competing narratives that are incompatible historical narratives vs. denial literature. Drawing comparisons between the two should make more evident the genre-specific characteristics of history-writing and Holocaust denial. They are not, and can never be, the same, no matter how much deniers may try to convince us otherwise. But what to do about this dichotomy? That question is largely the basis for my third chapter. It is my contention that turning to the evidence cannot be the only method by which to distinguish between history and denial. More is required to convince others of the falsity of deniers claims, and for me this is a larger issue, one that must take into account not just how but also why we write about the past. Lost is the sense that there is an ethical component to history-writing, specifically as this relates to events like the Holocaust, the issues surrounding which seem to require no less than a general notion of right-wrong. Judging between accounts thereby takes on a more meaningful role in the sense that focusing solely on issues of true-false tends to minimize the importance of the Holocaust as lesson. So, too, I think, does this lend itself rather easily to the disconcerting placement of post-modernism/relativism and Holocaust denial under the same sign. That is, Holocaust denial is untrue, and because post-modernists are often condemned precisely because they question the very notions of truth and objectivity in historical writing, deniers and post-modernists are often linked. However, such a narrow focus risks missing the forest for the trees. Instead of looking solely at how post-modernism threatens the truth, history would be better served through the use of post-modern concepts in order to make more evident the ethical component of the discipline of history. In fact, this is what a number of scholars from other disciplines have suggested, for it is in the meaning of the Holocaust the Holocaust as lesson that we have the best prevention against denial. Our discipline, after all, is comprised of much more than facts. The more effectively we impart this to students and readers, the better the chance they will understand who historians really are, what they really do, and why it is important. This alone should make clearer the idea that deniers are not historians, and that what they say is wrong on much more than just a factual level.

Canadian historians periodically reassess the state of their craft, including their role as conveyors of the past to the Canadian public. With each review since the late 1960s, some Canadian historians have attempted to distance the profession from the work of those scholars labelled national historians. Three of the most prominent of these national historians were Arthur Lower, Donald Creighton, and W.L. Morton, whose work was once popular among both professional historians and the general population. Drawing primarily upon reviews of their monographs, this thesis tracks the changing status of national history within English-Canadian historiography since 1945 by examining how Canadian historians have received the work and assessed the careers of Arthur Lower, Donald Creighton, and W.L. Morton.<p> National history can be broadly defined as the history of a specific nation, more typically, a nation-state. While the specific characteristics of national history have, like other types of history, changed over time, Canadian national history in the decades following the end of the Second World War used strong scholarship and clear, readable prose to communicate a specific vision of Canada to the general public. While Lower, Creighton, and Morton applied differing interpretations to their historical research, they all employed these components of national history within their work. After the Canadian Centennial, a new cohort of baby boomer historians brought a different set of values to their understanding of history, and the interpretations so widely acclaimed during the 1950s and early 1960s failed to persuade this new generation of Canadian historians. The lasting reputation of each of these three national historians has been highly dependent on whether each scholars preferred interpretation aligns with the new values held by the new generation of Canadian historians. While W.L. Mortons western perspective fit in well with the regional concerns of the 1980s, and Arthur Lower retained a reputation as an early innovator of social history, Donald Creightons career has been remembered for the strident opinions of his later life, especially regarding the growth of Quebec nationalism and the increasing influence of the United States within Canadian national affairs. It is Creightons diminished reputation among English Canadian historians that is most commonly linked to the moniker of national history. As the gap between the postwar understanding of Canada and the post-Beatles vision for Canada continued to widen throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Canadian historical community, on the whole, continued to equate all national history with the reactionary reputation of an aging Donald Creighton. While this simplistic view provides convenient shorthand for the genre of national history, it fails to appreciate both the substantial contributions of national historians to Canadian historiography and the widespread influence of their work on the reading Canadian public.

In 1919 Anton Nyström became the first person in Sweden to publish a comprehensive defense of homosexuality. He believed that its classification as a mental illness was erroneous and that Sweden's law against homosexual sex was both irrational and cruel. Nyström was a physician whose work in the medical area dealt primarily with dermatology, psychiatry and human sexuality; however he was also a prolific historian, who took a staunchly anti-Christian view in his analysis of how Christianity affected European culture, especially in the area of sexual morality. In fact, much of Nyström's medical texts dealing with human sexuality consisted of anti-Christian cultural and historical commentary. The object of this "C-uppsats" is to analyze Nyström's pamphlet, Om Homosexualitet och Hermafroditi: Belysning af Missförstådda Existenser and illustrate how its defensive structure was consistent with the pattern used by the author in his other books and articles on human sexuality. Specifically, that irrational and neurotic Christian beliefs caused both mental and physical suffering and were the source of deleterious forms of morality. Additionally, this paper will also show that the solution Nyström had for the problem of negative and erroneous attitudes towards homosexuality was to replace the sodomitic view of homosexuality with one based upon a more rational and naturalistic belief system, the basis of which could be found in the pre-Christian cultures of Europe, most especially in Greece. This new conception was to be constructed primarily out of historical example and cultural analyses. For Nyström, history writing was used both as a weapon to fight the source of negative attitudes towards homosexuality, as well as a tool that could be used to build a positive cultural model which would be beneficial for homosexuals.

The dissertation examines Suetonius' ideals of feminine conduct by exploring the behaviors he lauds or censures in imperial women. The approach comes from scholarship on the biographer's practice of evaluating of his male subjects against a consistent ideal. This study argues that Suetonius applies the same method to imperial women. His tendency to speak of women in standardized rubrics (ancestry, marriage, the birth of children) suggests that he has a fixed notion of model feminine behavior, one that values women for being wives and mothers. Chapter 1 argues that because Suetonius' Lives center on male subjects, his picture of women is fragmented at best. The biographer uses this fragmentation to manipulate his female characters. Livia, for instance, is cast as a "good" wife in the Augustus, but as a "bad" mother in the Tiberius. Suetonius' often inconsistent drawing of women reveals that he uses them primarily to elucidate certain aspects of their associated men. Having a "good" wife, mother, or sister reflects well on an emperor, while having a "bad" one reveals his lack of authority. Chapter 2 explores the role of mother. Atia serves as the "good," silent type and Livia and Agrippina the Younger the "bad," meddling type. Chapter 3 investigates the role of wife. Livia exemplifies the "good," loyal wife who is not politically active, while Agrippina the Younger illustrates the "bad," sexually manipulative wife who murders her husband to advance her son. Chapter 4 looks at members of the wider imperial family, noting that Suetonius writes more about sexually promiscuous women, such as Drusilla and Julia, than those women, like Domitilla the Younger, who followed social norms by marrying and bearing children. As a result, the Caesares are slanted towards negative portrayals of women. Chapter 5 "reassembles" the fragmented picture of women. The small role that Suetonius writes for Poppaea reveals his independence from Tacitus. The biographer's portrayal of Livia and Agrippina subverts ideals espoused on imperial coins and statues. Overall, the most important role for women in the Caesares is that of mother. By focusing on his portrayal of women, this study also sheds light on Suetonius' use of rhetoric and stereotypes. / Dissertation