Every piece of historical writing has, in the process of creation, stick with under the influence of the historians perspective and mark. The extent to which these two influences tack the writing of register depends on the individual historian.
All accounting is the history of thoughtÂ, as Collingwood states. Therefor, no two accounts of the same event, issue, or person offer be entirely the same.
        The point of the historian is an element of historical writing that may distort dramatically the way they write. As Bullock states, the historian does non live in isolation, therefor he is sensitive to the interests and problems that erect the society in which he lives.         These interests and problems can manipulate the project a historian has in writing his history and can therefor dramatically effect the manner in which they write.
The greatness of the relationship between the composition being written most and the personal influences of the historian can perhaps best be summarised by Collingwood.
He states that, History is concerned neither with the early(prenominal) by itself nor with the historians thoughts about it by itself, but with the two things in mutual relations.
         From this comment made by Collingwood we can analyze that history, in its entirety, must contain both the information of the topic being written about and the interpretation of the individual historian. It is the indispensability of the interpretation of the historian that reinforces Collingwoods earlier statement, that all history is the history of thought.         A striking example of the way in which the purpose of the historian can manipulate what is written and the manner in which the historian writes, is that of Cornelius Tacitus. Tacitus was bred from a family who was destroyed by the emperor Domitian. It was this run into that fuelled Tacitus desire to...
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment