When Frederick the Great wanted his secretary to read
history' to him, he used to say, "Bring me the liar." That is one
view of i that all history is a lie. But that is true only when history is
made' into a sort of documented film, to illustrate a theory or to uphold a
point of view. The literary artist comes to attach greater importance to the
picturesque, the pageant that is true to the fact. Gibbon,' Macaulay,
Carlyle, Thucidytes, Tacitus, — they all fall into this error more or
less. They are literary artists first; history is to them only the background
which sets off the picture they would draw. But Momsen, Lipson or Toyenbee in
our days treated history in another way. They see man in times. So history
written by these men makes a most interesting study. Gibbon unrolls before us a
panoramic view of the show, decline and eventual fall of the mighty Roman
Empire. Carlyle flashes before our mind's eye vividly men and events of the
French Revolution, full of the vitality of real life and we are enthralled by
the awe-inspiring spectacle. The study of such records of human achievements
and failures can never be dull or uninteresting. Nor, indeed, need they be. The
literary history has one advantage. It enlivens memory and makes the past live
before our eyes. Even more than that, it breathes life into the dead records
and what was dry as dust becomes full of vital interest, the graveyard of the
past becomes a gallery of vibrant personalities and events.
But in modern times another type of history has emerged — a
different type that Chateaubriand indicated when he said "Grecian history
is a poem ; Latin history a picture ; modern history– a chronicle." The
modern historian prides himself on being a recorder of attested and verified
facts, properly collated and analysed. He dives into all ancient record, —
whether engraved on stones or impressed on relics or coins, suggested by
pictures or indicated by tradition ; and he studies these with a scientific
mind. Such history is often dry reading. Carlyle regarded history as a
biography of great-men. To him only they were the makers of
history Rabindranath, on the other hand, comments that our history books
only lay stress on bloody battles, neglecting the achievements and cultural
conquests in the piping times of peace. But moderns take history as succession
of emergencies that never follow a set pattern.
But whether history is imaginative or factual, the utility of
reading it, is great. The dread of the future judgement of posterity may
restrain one from indulging in the abuses of power, of wealth. But
even more than that, history serves as a guide, an example and a warning,
for avoiding the pitfalls. Out of the pages of history we may gather practical
wisdom by applying the lessons of the past to the problems of the present.
History confers on the young the wisdom of age without the burden of years. It
is thus the pleasantest school of acquiring wisdom. Study of history equips us
with wisdom in practical affairs. We can look deep into the past and certainly
our vision becomes clearer and our insight more penetrating. In a
democratic age, when the duty of forming clear opinions on practical and
social problems devolves on all of us, the study of history should be regarded
as imperative. For today is only a projection of the yesterdays, and a passage
to the unborn future. Thus we can cherish our deep respect for the heroes as
well as common workers of the past and realize – 'for us they bled'.
0 Comment to "The Study Of History"
Post a Comment