ater and pretend to know better?” (Butterfield, 1951) If we argue that indeed it is, the second option for the historian is to only study events in such recent history that he himself has participated in their unfolding. Those who write the history of their own times have the advantage of obtaining the type of perspective and clarity that comes only with first-hand knowledge of conditions that often are lost, left out or otherwise ill-expressed, such as underlying moods or relationships. The technical historian, who relies on letters, diaries, newspapers, political or public documents that merely happened to survive cannot, like Thucydides, cross-examine or counterbalance the authors or their work. History shows how facts and ideas must be used together, with ideas developed from knowledge of the facts, and checked against them, while the facts are organized and interpreted in relation to the ideas that give them meaning. It is the historian’s intricate duty to humbly and critically approach whatever media are available to him, in order to gain insight into the lives and times of the past. It is his further business to present this insight to others, always remaining open-minded and objective. Essentially then, he must maintain the delicate balance between being “past-minded”, “present concerned”, and “future-oriented” (Nash, 1970).Knowing (as we now do) how very demanding and perilous this field is on the scholar and professional historian, we cannot help but wonder what worth there is in fighting such an uphill battle. The answer is simple: the view once you get to the top. The view of human events in their total setting of time, place, institution and circumstance. Though the pursuit and process of history is unique and complex, it is nonetheless intelligible. Each situation and event, distinct as it is, is still connected to all the foregoing and succeeding ones, by a complex web of ca...
