orians consulted primary sources as far as possible for their evidence and the finished product was regarded as highly factual. No interpretations were presented and no opinions were offered. The reading of these works is fairly heavy going and the writings themselves, rather stagnant. One could argue, that only a historian could gain pleasure from such a text.Every historian develops his own style of writing and applies it to his study. A Marxist historian for example will apply the philosophy found in the works of Karl Marx to each study of history that he undertakes. Marxs theory of all of history being a history of class struggle between the elite and the impoverished is a elementary factor in this philosophy.The Post Modernists, have widely criticised the historian to date, and they would argue that objectivity is impossible to achieve in the field of history. These views, compelled Richard Evans to defend the historian in his work In Defence of History Against the Post Modernist Attack. In his book, he states that "historical sources are not capable of an infinity of meaning," and that the possibilities of interpretation are set out to a large extent by the original author of the source document." He also defends the reader of history in that they "do not gullibly swallow everything the historian writes as the absolute truth." In short, a reader of history is sufficiently intelligent to form his own view and interpretation independent of the writer.Today, in the western society, we are privileged with a state wherein free speech and freedom of information is well practiced. Historians are unlikely to face persecution or imprisonment if they do not favour the ideas of the establishment. Historians can be as biased or critical at will as long as their opinions are well founded so as to satisfy the discerning critic. On a humorous note one could conclude with the words of Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk!" but it...
