“History is a version of events. Between the events and the historian there is a constant interplay.” This means that history is very much dependent on whomever is writing it, and what his or her motives are. Historians such as Herodotus believed that he had to report events as what was told to him for the sole purpose of reporting it to the people. But even he admits that History must not always considered as comp

When a historian is working on his subject, the events or statistical data or whatever he is using change under his hand all the time and his ideas about these events change with them. He upgrades some of the evidence and downgrades other parts according to the changes of his outlook. Sometimes, I am afraid, he exaggerates the importance of a piece of evidence because it fits in well with what he is trying to say.1

Why else should we be more critical of what we read from the writings of historians? Green mentions the words of Hayden White, an eminent philosopher of history who states that history is a “product of the historian’s own personal mindset, not of objective reality. It is created by historians who give expression to their presuppositions through strategically chosen literary devices.” (pg. 5) J.P. Taylor agrees with this statement when he says:

The point is, as we study history, we must be wary of the documents about history that we encounter. Not everything should be taken at face value. We must be watchful of false reports, and should equally be careful of events that we will be reporting ourselves, following the example of Herodotus who took care in weighing evidence. We must also encourage change, for our written history may always be revised. Panta rei, as Heraclitus said, all things move. “Once writ

Some topics in this essay:
Geoffrey Elton, JP Taylor, , Historians Herodotus, Age Greece, Hayden White, green pg, history makes history, study history, choose accept, history history, history makes, models theories, events historians, makes history, written history, historical events,