What is History?’ by E.H. Carr: Reader's Reflection

Reflective Essay

What is history? Though history had been there since ancient periods, most people and scholars are confused about what really history means. The definition of history is neither complicated nor easy. The question of what is history sometimes feels meaningless but also superfluous. The book’ What is History?’ by E.H Carr talks about different definitions of history by different scholars and criticisms of their definitions. The historians and philosophers of medieval periods come up with writing history in different ways based on their ideologies and philosophical thought. Hence, historians like Herodotus, Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, and Thomas shoot up the different definitions of history in their own perceptions and points of view. But, the way of defining history is always criticized and the chain of continuity for defining history had never come to a full stop. As an example, Thomas Carlyle defines history as ‘‘Biography of Great Men.’’ But it too had been criticized by other historians. Thus, it is a unique opportunity to define history in the best way through the interpretation of facts by using new methods and techniques for finding truth in history. As historians and facts play a very important role in writing history. According to Carr to be a historian the person should have gone through the situation events should be evaluated not to be interpreted. Hence, the main point that triggers our mind is none of the writers had gone through past events and what really historians had come up with is not believable. Thus, history had been more biased and subjective. Carr states that ‘’ before someone study history, study the historians.’’ Which I agree is important to do. The facts are being studied by historians and interpretation depends on them. Thus, without knowing the historians first it is foolish to believe in their works. But, history too had been an unending dialogue between past and present and it had a chain of continuity from generation to generation. The main intention of the book is to know how to become a historian and what value needs to be as a historian. Not only that books talks about how historians do their jobs. Why the different definitions of history? How to become a historian? What history really means? Why is history a chain of continuity? How is history science? Medieval history had been more theological, mythological, beliefs, and more of great men. Thus, history as a biography of great men makes sense in the present world.

For before reading this book, I thought history is the art of studying past events through facts and shreds of evidence provided by different historians with the use of their own cranial capacity. But, this book provides information on history being science too, and the use of scientific methods for inquiry of historical facts. The elements and method used by historians for inquiry seems remarkable to the idea used by scientist for finding the truth. According to Carr the status of the hypothesis used by the historians in the process of his inquiry seems remarkably similar to that of the hypothesis used by the scientists. Thus, what I thought of history as an art and its art subject as an academic discipline are proven wrong. I got the lesson that historical writing consists of both science and arts. Moreover, I conclude that history is more of a science in which historians use methods like observation, recording, and oral science to conclude facts and events to be true.

Previously, I thought what historians view as right and their deeds are objective. But I was lessoned that what really historian talk about facts and events is not always true. Historical writing depends on historian interpretation of how they feel and view the past through their own eye. Moreover, the writing of history is influenced by the time, environment, and societies of historians. Thus, history had been more subjective and biased. Facts and interpretation play an important role in constructing history so that historians create facts interpreted without evaluating creating history more subjectively. Moreover, I was inspired that there are no ‘’historical truth’’ objectivity and history is what historian makes thus, history is more subjective than objectivity. But, it is possible to write history objectively. It can be written based on the evaluation of new and real facts by the historian.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

As defined by Thomas Carlyle ’’History is a biography of great men.’’ I do support his point. For example, history talks about powerful men like Hitler who gain the power in Second World War. History talks about the role played by Hitler and his philosophy to gain the power to control the world. And what makes him murder Jews? Just like that history is more of monarchs and great men who gain power over the political, social, and economic welfare. The world blames Hitler and Wilhelm II for causing World War II and it’s known through the biography of great men. The biography also talks about how society had been under the great men and the role played by them for the welfare of the community. Not only that, biography helps to provide ideas for present men to rule the country in better ways through lessons gained from past history of great men.

But the biography of great men as history to had critic. When historians talk about great men they had focused more on their good deeds and neglected the negative side providing history more subjective. Moreover, the biography of great men considers men as an individual. As I got from the book that we never know the great man who stood so far in advance of the time had unknown

Individuals who had just picked up on the top and historians had neglected them. According to Carr, the great man is always representative either of existing forces or of forces that he helps to create by way challenge existing authority. For example, Napoleon or Bismarck rode to greatest on the back of existing forces. As the same as the biography of the great man was written by a person who serves them and does work in favor of them. Moreover, the biography of a great man and history is from a different perspective. History treats man as a whole while biography treats men as individuals. Thus, the biography provides bad history and it’s more subjective.

In nutshell, writing histories in the form of biography is not a structured way. Historians must strive to write history from common views, To bring history as a common subject. So, I learn that historians with a good interpretation of an event will have a lens to objectivity. Moreover, history depends on historians’ interpretation and it is important to study historians to study the best of the best history. I have gained the standpoint that the biography of great men is not history. It won’t make sense in history. History is not played by one or two men. Many humans are there to play the role in constructing history. Moreover, history is not all about great men. But, constitute societies as a whole. I learn that history is the light into our past which makes our present more humanistic and artistic. The more we learn history, the more we will awaken about our past and the more we will be determined and farsighted about our future. Hence, history is not an ending discipline to study. It is a continuous way of writing and processing our past in a simplified way. Thus, it is a unique opportunity to be a more farsighted historian.