Academic historians have a complicated relationship with biography. Many popular biographies for the general reading public tend towards hagiography at the expense of critical analysis, typically celebrating famous white men, for their heroic deeds. Such studies often lack sophisticated methodology or original research, essentially portraying their subjects as destined for greatness. Nuanced questions about society and culture are often absent. In 2009, the American Historical Review featured a scholarly roundtable discussion of the genre of biography, including its place in the academy. David Nasaw, in the roundtable’s introduction, declared biography a “degraded form of historical writing” and the “profession’s unloved step child.”1 Roundtable participants sensed, nonetheless, a biographical “turn” in the field, acknowledging the genre’s allure and value. As Lois Banner explained, biography “speaks to the human desire for interconnections with others,” something particularly desirable in the early part of the twenty-first century.2 More recently, Daniel R. Meister made a plea for historians to accept biography “as an important subfield and begin to deliberately and actively encompass it.”3 This type of historical writing, Meister suggested, perhaps more than any other, counters accusations that scholars are out of touch and that the field of history is overspecialized and balkanized by identity politics. One wonders, however, if there is a middle ground that would appeal to a broadly-based readership while also maintaining academic standards and recognizing cultural complexities. Two new biographies of celebrated Union Civil War generals speak to the strengths and weakness of the genre. To be sure, neither book portends to offer anything really new to readers, nor has there been a dearth of studies about

中文翻译：

---

闪闪发光的谎言：美国格兰特、威廉·T·谢尔曼和传记

学术史学家与传记有着复杂的关系。许多大众阅读的流行传记倾向于以牺牲批判性分析为代价的圣徒传记，通常是为了庆祝著名的白人男性的英雄事迹。此类研究通常缺乏复杂的方法论或原创研究，基本上将其主题描绘为注定要伟大。关于社会和文化的细微问题往往不存在。2009 年，《美国历史评论》举办了一场关于传记体裁的学术圆桌讨论，包括它在学院中的地位。戴维·纳索 (David Nasaw) 在圆桌会议的介绍中宣称，传记是“历史写作的堕落形式”和“该行业不受欢迎的继子”1。尽管如此，圆桌会议的参与者感觉到了该领域的传记“转变”，承认这一流派的魅力和价值。正如 Lois Banner 所解释的那样，传记“表达了人类对与他人联系的渴望”，这在 21 世纪初期尤其令人向往。2 最近，丹尼尔·R·迈斯特 (Daniel R. Meister) 呼吁历史学家接受传记“作为一个重要的子领域，并开始有意并积极地涵盖它。”3 这种类型的历史写作，梅斯特建议，也许比任何其他历史写作都更能反驳关于学者脱节以及历史领域过度专业化和被身份政治分裂的指责. 然而，有人想知道，是否有一种中间立场既能吸引广泛的读者，又能保持学术标准并认识到文化的复杂性。两本著名的联邦内战将军的新传记讲述了该类型的优缺点。可以肯定的是，这两本书都没有向读者提供任何真正新的东西，也没有缺乏关于