First-Person Historical Accounts: Franklin, Orwell, Korolenko

Introduction: The Value of First-Person Historical Writing

Among the personalities of times past, first-hand accounts of personal biography are some of the most important historical records available to us. By presenting an "I was there" perspective, authors who specialize in the first-hand account provide rich detail and interpretive credibility in a way that other historical writers do not. In this paper, the accounts provided by Benjamin Franklin in his Autobiography, George Orwell in his Homage to Catalonia, and Vladimir Korolenko in his Pogrom at Kishinev are reviewed in order to determine how each author structured his personal account and what he hoped to achieve with it.

Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography

Franklin begins his account of his life as an address to his son. He is writing, he says, because he has taken great pleasure throughout his life in knowing the personal histories of his ancestors, and he wants to tell his son the story of his own development in the hope that his son may take pleasure in reading it. He goes on to relay details of his life in the early 1700s colonial period, including his upbringing and the people and places he knew.

He recalls events he believes will appeal to his son and also instruct him — such as when he writes that he was not very good at mathematics but was good at writing, his skills thereby pointing him in a direction that would shape his development as a printer. He tells of a time when he was caught in a lie and learned the value of honesty. He describes his apprenticeships and relationships in ways that illuminate the economic and social conditions of the era.

Throughout, Franklin has a couple of underlying purposes: first, an honest effort to lay down the account of an earlier time in a way that shows how both he and his society developed; and second, an attempt to build his own credibility so that when he indulges in teaching life lessons, his authority is accepted. The account is warm, insightful, and engaging, and it gives a vivid picture of the industriousness necessary to reach the heights that a man like Franklin achieved.

Vladimir Korolenko's Pogrom at Kishinev

Korolenko tells his tale of a mob massacre of Jews in 1903 with the aim of conveying the horror and injustice of the events in question. He writes from the perspective of a journalist recounting events after having arrived in town roughly two months following the massacre. Nevertheless, he relays those events in a first-hand manner, telling the details as though he had been present among the crowd. Having gathered his information from interviews with survivors conducted soon after the events, this first-hand approach feels real and credible.

He gives a convincing portrait of the madness of crowds and the bloodlust of anti-Semitism. His overarching purpose is to persuade the reader of the injustice of the events, and he builds credibility for his story by recounting the tale of a man who led the riots, only to repent later and take his own life. In doing so, Korolenko suggests that even the perpetrators knew, on some level, that what they had done was wrong.

Conclusion: Purpose, Credibility, and the Historian's Self-Revelation

The accounts reviewed each stress events that the authors wished to relay in order to achieve their larger purposes. Because those events were relayed skillfully, the authors gained credibility that supported their more interpretive aims. This is, perhaps, a chief reason for both writing and reading history. In the end, the historian tells as much about himself as he does about his subject — and the reader learns as much about himself as about the past.