Forging the Partial Narrative: The Causatum of the Human Historian
History is a truly fascinating concept. It is a recorded truth; an inevitable phenomenon that remains dormant until acted upon; exhumed by the discerning historian to forge a coherent narrative. This historical construct, however, is subject to the personal biases and interpretation of a single human individual whose views are shaped by upbringing and a unique life experience. Alexander Pope’s age-old adage, to err is human, is no more relevant than when referenced in the context of historical study. It is an inescapable truth, that for all artifacts and accounts left by our past as a human civilization, accurate or otherwise, history remains the hybridization of the partial …show more content…
As previously stated, it is perhaps the most damning issue facing the study of ancient and modern history, and presents a necessity for historians to be self-aware of their actions. In this self-awareness, historians will likely attempt to correctively remain impartial and balance a multitude of sources to craft the most nonpartisan of interpretations from the materials at their disposal. While this is preferable to a skewed narrative that could emerge from a relatively careless or misguided interpretation, it introduces an exclusionary and inclusionary element that may still damage the account of the historian. This careful balance of sources and selective nature of historiographers ultimately determine the history consumed by academic contemporaries and an inquiring …show more content…
Cheyney states that history concerns itself with “whatever men have done or said,” referring to the immense magnitude of men and their past affairs (1927, 582). This is the phenomena to be studied by the historian, and such an undertaking undeniably requires a cooperative effort to encompass every conceivable theory. Through this cooperative effort, strides can be made in the attempt to locate the genuine agents of causality. It is in this obligation that the narrow focus and partial nature of the historian is now accompanied by the analyses of many others; viewpoints both compatible and conflicting amalgamate to form the “cohesive narrative” of
History is a truly fascinating concept. It is a recorded truth; an inevitable phenomenon that remains dormant until acted upon; exhumed by the discerning historian to forge a coherent narrative. This historical construct, however, is subject to the personal biases and interpretation of a single human individual whose views are shaped by upbringing and a unique life experience. Alexander Pope’s age-old adage, to err is human, is no more relevant than when referenced in the context of historical study. It is an inescapable truth, that for all artifacts and accounts left by our past as a human civilization, accurate or otherwise, history remains the hybridization of the partial …show more content…
As previously stated, it is perhaps the most damning issue facing the study of ancient and modern history, and presents a necessity for historians to be self-aware of their actions. In this self-awareness, historians will likely attempt to correctively remain impartial and balance a multitude of sources to craft the most nonpartisan of interpretations from the materials at their disposal. While this is preferable to a skewed narrative that could emerge from a relatively careless or misguided interpretation, it introduces an exclusionary and inclusionary element that may still damage the account of the historian. This careful balance of sources and selective nature of historiographers ultimately determine the history consumed by academic contemporaries and an inquiring …show more content…
Cheyney states that history concerns itself with “whatever men have done or said,” referring to the immense magnitude of men and their past affairs (1927, 582). This is the phenomena to be studied by the historian, and such an undertaking undeniably requires a cooperative effort to encompass every conceivable theory. Through this cooperative effort, strides can be made in the attempt to locate the genuine agents of causality. It is in this obligation that the narrow focus and partial nature of the historian is now accompanied by the analyses of many others; viewpoints both compatible and conflicting amalgamate to form the “cohesive narrative” of