In schoolrooms and in public forums, one hears quite often, and sometimes deli.vered with an Olym- pian air, that to be authoritative a historian, like a mathematician, should not, must not, darken the pages of his work with his own shadow and chat to do so would make him lose that supreme objectivity which, in the thinking of Cambridge classical historian, J. I use "art" advisedly, for rightly looked upon, history is not a social science but a branch of the humanities, specifically, literary art. This "wondering" is premised basically on the supposition, held as infallible in certain quarters, that history, that is, history as a written account of what happened in the past, is and should be objective if its author is to be counted among the respectable and respected practitioners of the art. -'.~ I+ ~ny a time people have ~ondered why historians, equipped with the same educational background and possessing the same his- torical materials.differ widely in their views and interpretation of what are conveniently called historical facts.Download Historical Interpretation by Teodoro Agoncillo and more History Papers in PDF only on Docsity!HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION '~~~
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |